Hubbry Logo
CaracallaCaracallaMain
Open search
Caracalla
Community hub
Caracalla
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Caracalla
Caracalla
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (born Lucius Septimius Bassianus, 4 April 188 – 8 April 217), better known by his nickname Caracalla (/ˌkærəˈkælə/;[3] Latin: [karaˈkalːa]), was Roman emperor from 198 to 217 AD, first serving as nominal co-emperor under his father and then ruling alone after 211 AD. He was a member of the Severan dynasty, the elder son of Emperor Septimius Severus and Empress Julia Domna. Severus proclaimed Caracalla co-ruler in 198, doing the same with his other son Geta in 209. The two brothers briefly shared power after their father's death in 211, but Caracalla soon had Geta murdered by the Praetorian Guard and became sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Julia Domna had a significant share in governance, since Caracalla found administration to be mundane. His reign featured domestic instability and external invasions by the Germanic peoples.

Caracalla issued the Antonine Constitution (Latin: Constitutio Antoniniana), also known as the Edict of Caracalla, which granted Roman citizenship to all free men throughout the Roman Empire. The edict gave all the enfranchised men Caracalla's adopted praenomen and nomen: "Marcus Aurelius". Other landmarks of his reign were the construction of the Baths of Caracalla, the second-largest bathing complex in the history of Rome, the introduction of a new Roman currency named the antoninianus, a sort of double denarius, and the massacres he ordered, both in Rome and elsewhere in the empire. In 216, Caracalla began a campaign against the Parthian Empire. He did not see this campaign through to completion due to his assassination by a disaffected soldier in 217. Macrinus succeeded him as emperor three days later.

The ancient sources portray Caracalla as a cruel tyrant; his contemporaries Cassius Dio (c. 155 – c. 235) and Herodian (c. 170 – c. 240) present him as a soldier first and an emperor second. In the 12th century, Geoffrey of Monmouth started the legend of Caracalla's role as king of Britain. Later, in the 18th century, the works of French painters revived images of Caracalla due to apparent parallels between Caracalla's tyranny and that ascribed to king Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792). Modern works continue to portray Caracalla as an evil ruler, painting him as one of the most tyrannical of all Roman emperors.

Names

[edit]

Caracalla's name at birth was Lucius Septimius Bassianus. He was renamed Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at the age of seven as part of his father's attempt at union with the families of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.[4][5][1] According to the 4th-century historian Aurelius Victor in his Epitome de Caesaribus, he became known by the agnomen "Caracalla" after a Gallic hooded tunic that he habitually wore and made fashionable.[6] He may have begun wearing it during his campaigns on the Rhine and Danube.[7] Cassius Dio, who was still writing his Historia romana during Caracalla's reign,[8] generally referred to him as "Tarautas", after a famously diminutive and violent gladiator of the time, though he also calls him "Caracallus" on various occasions.[9]

Early life

[edit]
Young Caracalla; Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg

Caracalla was born in Lugdunum, Gaul (now Lyon, France), on 4 April 188 to Septimius Severus (r. 193–211) and Julia Domna, thus giving him Punic paternal ancestry and Arab maternal ancestry.[10] He had a slightly younger brother, Geta, with whom Caracalla briefly ruled as co-emperor.[4][11] Caracalla was five years old when his father was acclaimed Augustus on 9 April 193.[12]

Caesar

[edit]
Bust of Septimius Severus, Caracalla's father (Glyptothek, Munich)
Bust of Septimius Geta, Caracalla's brother (Louvre, Paris)

In early 195, Caracalla's father Septimius Severus had himself adopted posthumously by the deified emperor (divus) Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180); accordingly, in 195 or 196 Caracalla was given the imperial rank of Caesar, adopting the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caesar, and was named imperator destinatus (or designatus) in 197, possibly on his birthday, 4 April, and certainly before 7 May.[12] He thus technically became a part of the well-remembered Antonine dynasty.[13]

Co-augustus

[edit]

Caracalla's father appointed Caracalla, aged 9, joint Augustus and full emperor from 28 January 198.[14][2] This was the day Septimius Severus's triumph was celebrated, in honour of his victory over the Parthian Empire in the Roman–Persian Wars; he had successfully sacked the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, after winning the Battle of Ctesiphon, probably in October 197.[15] He was also awarded tribunician power and the title of imperator.[12] In inscriptions, Caracalla is given from 198 the title of the chief priesthood, pontifex maximus.[13][12] His brother Geta was proclaimed nobilissimus caesar on the same day, and their father Septimius Severus was awarded the victory name Parthicus Maximus.[12]

In 199, he was inducted into the Arval Brethren.[13] By the end of 199, at age 11, he was entitled pater patriae.[13] In 202, he was Roman consul, having been named consul designatus the previous year.[13] His colleague was his father, serving his own third consulship.[15]

In 202, Caracalla was forced to marry the daughter of Gaius Fulvius Plautianus, Fulvia Plautilla, whom he hated, though for what reason is unknown.[16] The wedding took place between the 9 and the 15 April, just after he turned 14.[13]

In 205, Caracalla was consul for the second time, in company with Geta – his brother's first consulship.[13] By 205, aged 16, Caracalla had got Plautianus executed for treason, though he had probably fabricated the evidence of the plot.[16] It was then that he banished his wife, whose later killing might have been carried out under Caracalla's orders.[4][16]

On 28 January 207, at age 18, Caracalla celebrated his decennalia, the tenth anniversary of the beginning of his reign.[13] The year 208 was the year of his third and Geta's second consulship.[13] Geta was himself granted the rank of Augustus and tribunician powers in September or October 209.[13][17][12]

During the reign of his father, Caracalla's mother Julia Domna had played a prominent public role, receiving titles of honour such as "Mother of the camp", but she also played a role behind the scenes helping her husband administer the empire.[18] Described as ambitious,[19] Julia Domna surrounded herself with thinkers and writers from all over the empire.[20] While Caracalla was mustering and training troops for his planned Persian invasion, Julia remained in Rome, administering the empire. Julia's growing influence in state affairs was the beginning of a trend of emperors' mothers having influence, which continued throughout the Severan dynasty.[21]

Reign as senior emperor

[edit]

Geta as co-augustus

[edit]

On 4 February 211, Septimius Severus died at Eboracum (present-day York, England) while on campaign in Caledonia, to the north of Roman Britain.[22]

This left his two sons and co-augusti, Caracalla and his brother, Geta, as joint inheritors of their father's throne and empire.[17][22] Caracalla adopted his father's cognomen, Severus, and assumed the chief priesthood as pontifex maximus.[23] His name became Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Pius Augustus.[23]

Caracalla and Geta ended the Roman invasion of Caledonia after concluding a peace with the Caledonians that returned the border of Roman Britain to the line demarcated by Hadrian's Wall.[17][24] During the journey back from Britain to Rome with their father's ashes, Caracalla and his brother continuously argued with one another, making relations between them increasingly hostile.[17][24] Caracalla and Geta considered dividing the empire in half along the Bosphorus to make their co-rule less hostile. Caracalla was to rule in the west and Geta was to rule in the east. They were persuaded not to do this by their mother.[24]

Geta's murder

[edit]
Geta Dying in his Mother's Arms, Jacques-Augustin-Catherine Pajou, 1766–1828 (Staatsgalerie Stuttgart)

On 26 December 211, at a reconciliation meeting arranged by their mother, Geta was assassinated by members of the Praetorian Guard loyal to the 23-year-old Caracalla. Geta died in his mother's arms. It is widely accepted, and clearly most likely, that Caracalla ordered the assassination himself, as the two had never been on favourable terms with one another, much less after succeeding their father.[22]

Caracalla then persecuted and executed most of Geta's supporters and ordered a damnatio memoriae pronounced by the Senate against his brother's memory.[6][25] Geta's image was removed from all paintings, coins were melted down, statues were destroyed, his name was struck from papyrus records, and it became a capital offence to speak or write Geta's name.[26] In the aftermath of the damnatio memoriae, an estimated 20,000 people were massacred.[25][26] Those killed were Geta's inner circle of guards and advisers, friends, and other military staff under his employ.[25]

Reign as sole emperor

[edit]
Bust of Julia Domna (Museo Chiaramonti)

When Geta died in 211, Julia Domna's responsibilities increased, because Caracalla found administrative tasks to be mundane.[18] She may have taken on one of the more important civil functions of the emperor; receiving petitions and answering correspondence.[27] The extent of her role in this position, however, is probably overstated. She may have represented her son and played a role in meetings and answering queries; however, the final authority on legal matters was Caracalla.[27] The emperor filled all of the roles in the legal system as judge, legislator, and administrator.[27]

Constitutio Antoniniana

[edit]

The Constitutio Antoniniana (lit. "Constitution of Antoninus", also called "Edict of Caracalla" or "Antonine Constitution") was an edict issued in 212 by Caracalla declaring that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship,[28] with the exception of the dediticii, people who had become subject to Rome through surrender in war, and freed slaves.[29][30][31][32][33]

Before 212, the majority of Roman citizens had been inhabitants of Roman Italia, with about 4–7% of all peoples in the Roman Empire being Roman citizens at the time of the death of Augustus in AD 14. Outside Rome, citizenship was restricted to Roman coloniae[a] – Romans, or their descendants, living in the provinces, the inhabitants of various cities throughout the Empire – and small numbers of local nobles such as kings of client countries. Provincials, on the other hand, were usually non-citizens, although some magistrates and their families and relatives held the Latin Right.[b][37]

Dio maintains that one purpose for Caracalla issuing the edict was the desire to increase state revenue; at the time, Rome was in a difficult financial situation and needed to pay for the new pay raises and benefits that were being conferred on the military.[38] The edict widened the obligation for public service and gave increased revenue through the inheritance and emancipation taxes that only had to be paid by Roman citizens.[39] However, few of those that gained citizenship were wealthy, and while it is true that Rome was in a difficult financial situation, it is thought that this could not have been the sole purpose of the edict.[38] The provincials also benefited from this edict because they were now able to think of themselves as equal partners to the Romans in the empire.[39]

Another purpose for issuing the edict, as described within the papyrus upon which part of the edict was inscribed, was to appease the gods who had delivered Caracalla from conspiracy.[40] The conspiracy in question was in response to Caracalla's murder of Geta and the subsequent slaughter of his followers; fratricide would only have been condoned if his brother had been a tyrant.[41] The damnatio memoriae against Geta and the large payments Caracalla had made to his own supporters were designed to protect himself from possible repercussions. After this had succeeded, Caracalla felt the need to repay the gods of Rome by returning the favour to the people of Rome through a similarly grand gesture. This was done through the granting of citizenship.[41][42]

Another purpose for issuing the edict might have been related to the fact that the periphery of the empire was now becoming central to its existence, and the granting of citizenship may have been simply a logical outcome of Rome's continued expansion of citizenship rights.[42][43]

Alamannic war

[edit]

In 213, about a year after Geta's death, Caracalla left Rome, never to return.[39] He went north to the German frontier to deal with the Alamanni, a confederation of Germanic tribes who had broken through the limes in Raetia.[39][44] During the campaign of 213–214, Caracalla successfully defeated some of the Germanic tribes while settling other difficulties through diplomacy, though precisely with whom these treaties were made remains unknown.[44][45] While there, Caracalla strengthened the frontier fortifications of Raetia and Germania Superior, collectively known as the Agri Decumates, so that it was able to withstand any further barbarian invasions for another twenty years.

Provincial tour

[edit]
The Roman Empire during the reign of Caracalla

In spring 214, Caracalla departed for the eastern provinces, travelling through the Danubian provinces and the Anatolian provinces of Asia and Bithynia.[13] He spent the winter of 214/215 in Nicomedia. By 4 April 215 he had left Nicomedia, and in the summer he was in Antioch on the Orontes.[13] By December 215 he was in Alexandria in the Nile Delta, where he stayed until March or April 216.[13]

When the inhabitants of Alexandria heard of Caracalla's claims that he had killed his brother Geta in self-defence, they produced a satire mocking this as well as Caracalla's other pretensions.[46][47] Caracalla responded to this insult by slaughtering the unsuspecting deputation of leading citizens that had assembled before the city to greet his arrival in December 215, before setting his troops against Alexandria for several days of looting and plunder.[39][48]

In spring 216 he returned to Antioch and before 27 May had set out to lead his Roman army against the Parthians.[13] During the winter of 215/216 he was in Edessa.[13] Caracalla then moved east into Armenia. By 216 he had pushed through Armenia and south into Parthia.[49]

Baths

[edit]
The Baths of Caracalla

Construction on the Baths of Caracalla in Rome began in 211 at the start of Caracalla's rule. The thermae are named for Caracalla, though it is most probable that his father was responsible for their planning. In 216, a partial inauguration of the baths took place, but the outer perimeter of the baths was not completed until the reign of Severus Alexander.[50]

These large baths were typical of the Roman practice of building complexes for social and state activities in large densely populated cities.[50] The baths covered around 50 acres (or 202,000 square metres) of land and could accommodate around 1,600 bathers at any one time.[50] They were the second largest public baths built in ancient Rome and were complete with swimming pools, exercise yards, a stadium, steam rooms, libraries, meeting rooms, fountains, and other amenities, all of which were enclosed within formal gardens.[50][51] The interior spaces were decorated with colourful marble floors, columns, mosaics, and colossal statuary.[52]

Caracalla and Serapis

[edit]
Caracalla as Pharaoh, Temple of Kom Ombo

At the outset of his reign, Caracalla declared imperial support for the Graeco-Egyptian god of healing Serapis. The Iseum and Serapeum in Alexandria were apparently renovated during Caracalla's co-rule with his father Septimius Severus. The evidence for this exists in two inscriptions found near the temple that appear to bear their names. Additional archaeological evidence exists for this in the form of two papyri that have been dated to the Severan period and also two statues associated with the temple that have been dated to around 200 AD. Upon Caracalla's ascension to being sole ruler in 212, the imperial mint began striking coins bearing Serapis' image. This was a reflection of the god's central role during Caracalla's reign. After Geta's death, the weapon that had killed him was dedicated to Serapis by Caracalla. This was most likely done to cast Serapis into the role of Caracalla's protector from treachery.[53]

Caracalla also erected a temple on the Quirinal Hill in 212, which he dedicated to Serapis.[48] A fragmented inscription found in the church of Sant' Agata dei Goti in Rome records the construction, or possibly restoration, of a temple dedicated to the god Serapis. The inscription bears the name "Marcus Aurelius Antoninus", a reference to either Caracalla or Elagabalus, but more likely to Caracalla due to his known strong association with the god. Two other inscriptions dedicated to Serapis, as well as a granite crocodile similar to one discovered at the Iseum et Serapeum, were also found in the area around the Quirinal Hill.[54]

Monetary policy

[edit]
O: laureate head of Caracalla

ANTONINVS PIVS AVG. GERM.

R: Sol holding globe, rising hand

Pontifex Maximus, TRibunus Plebis XVIIII, COnSul IIII, Pater Patriae

silver denarius struck in Rome 216 AD; ref.: RIC 281b, C 359

The expenditures that Caracalla made with the large bonuses he gave to soldiers prompted him to debase the coinage soon after his ascension.[6] At the end of Severus' reign and early into Caracalla's, the Roman denarius had an approximate silver purity of around 55%, but by the end of Caracalla's reign the purity had been reduced to about 51%.[55][56]

In 215 Caracalla introduced the antoninianus, a coin intended to serve as a double denarius.[57] This new currency, however, had a silver purity of about 52% for the period between 215 and 217 and an actual size ratio of 1 antoninianus to 1.5 denarii. This in effect made the antoninianus equal to about 1.5 denarii.[58][59][60] The reduced silver purity of the coins caused people to hoard the old coins that had higher silver content, aggravating the inflation problem caused by the earlier devaluation of the denarii.[57][58]

Military policy

[edit]

During his reign as emperor, Caracalla raised the annual pay of an average legionary from 2000 sesterces (500 denarii) to 2700–3000 sesterces (675–750 denarii). He lavished many benefits on the army, which he both feared and admired, in accordance with the advice given by his father on his deathbed always to heed the welfare of the soldiers and ignore everyone else.[17][44] Caracalla needed to gain and keep the trust of the military, and he did so with generous pay raises and popular gestures.[61] He spent much of his time with the soldiers, so much so that he began to imitate their dress and adopt their manners.[6][62][63]

After Caracalla concluded his campaign against the Alamanni, it became evident that he was inordinately preoccupied with emulating Alexander the Great.[7][64] He began openly mimicking Alexander in his personal style. In planning his invasion of the Parthian Empire, Caracalla decided to arrange 16,000 of his men in Macedonian-style phalanxes, despite the Roman army having made the phalanx an obsolete tactical formation.[7][64][65] The historian Christopher Matthew mentions that the term Phalangarii has two possible meanings, both with military connotations. The first refers merely to the Roman battle line and does not specifically mean that the men were armed with pikes, and the second bears similarity to the 'Marian Mules' of the late Roman Republic who carried their equipment suspended from a long pole, which were in use until at least the 2nd century AD.[65] As a consequence, the phalangarii of Legio II Parthica may not have been pikemen, but rather standard battle line troops or possibly triarii.[65]

Caracalla's mania for Alexander went so far that he visited Alexandria while preparing for his Persian invasion and persecuted philosophers of the Aristotelian school based on a legend that Aristotle had poisoned Alexander. This was a sign of Caracalla's increasingly erratic behaviour.[64]

Parthian war

[edit]

In 216, Caracalla pursued a series of aggressive campaigns in the east against the Parthians, intended to bring more territory under direct Roman control. He offered the king of Parthia, Artabanus IV of Parthia, a marriage proposal between himself and the king's daughter.[7][66] Artabanus refused the offer, realizing that the proposal was merely an attempt to unite the kingdom of Parthia under the control of Rome.[66] In response, Caracalla used the opportunity to start a campaign against the Parthians. That summer Caracalla began to attack the countryside east of the Tigris in the Parthian war of Caracalla.[66] In the following winter, Caracalla retired to Edessa, modern Şanlıurfa in south-east Turkey, and began making preparations to renew the campaign by spring.[66]

Death

[edit]

At the beginning of 217, Caracalla was still based at Edessa before renewing hostilities against Parthia.[7] On 8 April 217 Caracalla, who had just turned 29, was travelling to visit a temple of the moon god Sin,[67] while on the road from Edessa to Carrhae, now Harran in southern Turkey, where in 53 BC the Romans had suffered a defeat at the hands of the Parthians.[7] After stopping briefly to urinate, Caracalla was approached by a soldier, Justin Martialis, and stabbed.[7] A Scythian bodyguard of Caracalla killed Martialis with his lance. The two Praetorian tribunes rushed to the emperor, as if to help him, and completed the assassination.[68]

Martialis had been incensed by Caracalla's refusal to grant him the position of centurion, and the praetorian prefect Macrinus, Caracalla's successor, saw the opportunity to use Martialis to end Caracalla's reign.[66] In the immediate aftermath of Caracalla's death, his murderer, Martialis, was killed as well.[7] When Caracalla was murdered, Julia Domna was in Antioch sorting out correspondence, removing unimportant messages from the bunch so that when Caracalla returned, he would not be overburdened with duties.[18] Three days later, Macrinus declared himself emperor with the support of the Roman army.[69][70]

Portraiture

[edit]
This medallion exemplifies the typical manner in which Caracalla was depicted (Walters Art Museum, Baltimore)

Caracalla's official portrayal as sole emperor marks a break from the detached images of the philosopher-emperors who preceded him: his close-cropped haircut is that of a soldier, his pugnacious scowl a realistic and threatening presence. This rugged soldier-emperor, an iconic archetype, was adopted by most of the following emperors, such as Maximinus Thrax, who were dependent on the support of the troops to rule the empire.[71][72]

Herodian describes Caracalla as having preferred northern European clothing, Caracalla being the name of the short Gaulish cloak that he made fashionable, and he often wore a blond wig.[73] Dio mentions that when Caracalla was a boy, he had a tendency to show an angry or even savage facial expression.[74]

The way Caracalla wanted to be portrayed to his people can be seen through the many surviving busts and coins. Images of the young Caracalla cannot be clearly distinguished from his younger brother Geta.[75] On the coins, Caracalla was shown laureate after becoming augustus in 197; Geta is bareheaded until he became augustus himself in 209.[76] Between 209 and their father's death in February 211, both brothers are shown as mature young men who were ready to take over the empire.

Between the death of the father and the assassination of Geta towards the end of 211, Caracalla's portrait remains static with a short full beard while Geta develops a long beard with hair strains like his father. The latter was a strong indicator of Geta's effort to be seen as the true successor to their father, an effort that came to naught when he was murdered.[76] Caracalla's presentation on coins during the period of his co-reign with his father, from 198 to 210, are in broad terms in line with the third-century imperial representation; most coin types communicate military and religious messages, with other coins giving messages of saeculum aureum and virtues.[77]

During Caracalla's sole reign, from 212 to 217, a significant shift in representation took place. The majority of coins produced during this period made associations with divinity or had religious messages; others had non-specific and unique messages that were only circulated during Caracalla's sole rule.[78]

Legacy

[edit]

Damnatio memoriae

[edit]

Caracalla was not subject to a proper damnatio memoriae after his assassination; while the Senate disliked him, his popularity with the military prevented Macrinus and the Senate from openly declaring him to be a hostis. Macrinus, in an effort to placate the Senate, instead ordered the secret removal of statues of Caracalla from public view. After his death, the public made comparisons between him and other condemned emperors and called for the horse race celebrating his birthday to be abolished and for gold and silver statues dedicated to him to be melted down. These events were, however, limited in scope; most erasures of his name from inscriptions were either accidental or occurred as a result of re-use. Macrinus had Caracalla deified and commemorated on coins as Divus Antoninus. There does not appear to have been any intentional mutilation of Caracalla in any images that were created during his reign as sole emperor.[79]

Bronze portrait of Caracalla (Antikensammlung Berlin)

Classical portrayal

[edit]

Caracalla is presented in the ancient sources of Cassius Dio, Herodian, and the Historia Augusta as a cruel tyrant and savage ruler.[80] This portrayal of Caracalla is only further supported by the murder of his brother Geta and the subsequent massacre of Geta's supporters that Caracalla ordered.[80] Alongside this, these contemporary sources present Caracalla as a "soldier-emperor" for his preference of the soldiery over the senators, a depiction that made him even less popular with the senatorial biographers.[80] Dio explicitly presented Caracalla as an emperor who marched with the soldiers and behaved like a soldier. Dio also often referred to Caracalla's large military expenditures and the subsequent financial problems this caused.[80] These traits dominate Caracalla's image in the surviving classical literature.[81] The Baths of Caracalla are presented in classical literature as unprecedented in scale, and impossible to build if not for the use of reinforced concrete.[82] The Edict of Caracalla, issued in 212, however, goes almost unnoticed in classical records.[81]

The Historia Augusta is considered by historians as the least trustworthy for all accounts of events, historiography, and biographies among the ancient works and is full of fabricated materials and sources.[83][84][85][86][87] The works of Herodian of Antioch are, by comparison, "far less fantastic" than the stories presented by the Historia Augusta.[83] Historian Andrew G. Scott suggests that Dio's work is frequently considered the best source for this period.[88] However, historian Clare Rowan questions Dio's accuracy on the topic of Caracalla, referring to the work as having presented a hostile attitude towards Caracalla and thus needing to be treated with caution.[89] An example of this hostility is found in one section where Dio notes that Caracalla is descended from three different races and that he managed to combine all of their faults into one person: the fickleness, cowardice, and recklessness of the Gauls, the cruelty and harshness of the Africans, and the craftiness that is associated with the Syrians.[89] Despite this, the outline of events as presented by Dio are described by Rowan as generally accurate, while the motivations that Dio suggests are of questionable origin.[89] An example of this is his presentation of the Edict of Caracalla; the motive that Dio appends to this event is Caracalla's desire to increase tax revenue. Olivier Hekster, Nicholas Zair, and Rowan challenge this presentation because the majority of people who were enfranchised by the edict would have been poor.[38][89] In her work, Rowan also describes Herodian's depiction of Caracalla: more akin to a soldier than an emperor.[90]

Medieval legends

[edit]

Geoffrey of Monmouth's pseudohistorical History of the Kings of Britain makes Caracalla a king of Britain, referring to him by his actual name "Bassianus", rather than by the nickname Caracalla. In the story, after Severus' death the Romans wanted to make Geta king of Britain, but the Britons preferred Bassianus because he had a British mother. The two brothers fought until Geta was killed and Bassianus succeeded to the throne, after which he ruled until he was overthrown and killed by Carausius. However, Carausius' revolt actually happened about seventy years after Caracalla's death in 217.[91]

Eighteenth-century artworks and the French Revolution

[edit]
Septimius Severus and Caracalla, Jean-Baptiste Greuze, 1769 (Louvre)

Caracalla's memory was revived in the art of late eighteenth-century French painters. His tyrannical career became the subject of the work of several French painters such as Greuze, Julien de Parme [fr], David, Bonvoisin, J.-A.-C. Pajou, and Lethière. Their fascination with Caracalla was a reflection of the growing discontent of the French people with the monarchy. Caracalla's visibility was influenced by the existence of several literary sources in French that included both translations of ancient works and contemporary works of the time. Caracalla's likeness was readily available to the painters due to the distinct style of his portraiture and his unusual soldier-like choice of fashion that distinguished him from other emperors. The artworks may have served as a warning that absolute monarchy could become the horror of tyranny and that disaster could come about if the regime failed to reform. Art historian Susan Wood suggests that this reform was for the absolute monarchy to become a constitutional monarchy, as per the original goal of revolution, rather than the republic that it eventually became. Wood also notes the similarity between Caracalla and his crimes leading to his assassination and the eventual uprising against, and death of, King Louis XVI: both rulers had died as a result of their apparent tyranny.[92]

Modern portrayal

[edit]

Caracalla has had a reputation as being among the worst of Roman emperors, a perception that survives even into modern works.[93] The art and linguistics historian John Agnew and the writer Walter Bidwell describe Caracalla as having an evil spirit, referring to the devastation he wrought in Alexandria.[94] The Roman historian David Magie describes Caracalla, in the book Roman Rule in Asia Minor, as brutal and tyrannical and points towards psychopathy as an explanation for his behaviour.[95][96] The historian Clifford Ando supports this description, suggesting that Caracalla's rule as sole emperor is notable "almost exclusively" for his crimes of theft, massacre, and mismanagement.[97]

18th-century historian Edward Gibbon, author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, takes Caracalla's reputation, which he had received for the murder of Geta and subsequent massacre of Geta's supporters, and applied it to Caracalla's provincial tours, suggesting that "every province was by turn the scene of his rapine and cruelty".[93] Gibbon compared Caracalla to emperors such as Hadrian who spent their careers campaigning in the provinces and then to tyrants such as Nero and Domitian whose entire reigns were confined to Rome and whose actions only impacted upon the senatorial and equestrian classes residing there. Gibbon then concluded that Caracalla was "the common enemy of mankind", as both Romans and provincials alike were subject to "his rapine and cruelty".[39]

This representation is questioned by the historian Shamus Sillar, who cites the construction of roads and reinforcement of fortifications in the western provinces, among other things, as being contradictory to the representation made by Gibbon of cruelty and destruction.[98] The history professors Molefi Asante and Shaza Ismail note that Caracalla is known for the disgraceful nature of his rule, stating that "he rode the horse of power until it nearly died of exhaustion" and that though his rule was short, his life, personality, and acts made him a notable, though likely not beneficial, figure in the Roman Empire.[99]

Severan dynasty family tree

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

Antoninus (born Bassianus; 4 April 188 – 8 April 217), commonly known as Caracalla, was a who ruled from 198 to 217, initially as co-emperor with his father and later with his brother Geta after Severus's death in 211. The elder son of Severus and , Caracalla ascended amid the Severan dynasty's consolidation of power through military loyalty rather than senatorial support, reflecting a shift toward autocratic rule grounded in the army's backing.
His sole reign began violently with the of Geta on 26 December 211 in their Julia Domna's arms, followed by a that claimed approximately 20,000 lives, including senators, equestrians, and freedmen associated with Geta, demonstrating Caracalla's ruthless consolidation of authority. In 212, he issued the , extending to all free inhabitants of the empire, a measure likely motivated by fiscal needs to broaden the base amid increased expenditures, though ancient accounts attribute it also to religious pretexts for empire-wide sacrifices. Caracalla prioritized the , doubling soldiers' pay, which necessitated debasing the and imposing inheritance taxes, while conducting campaigns in , , and against revolts in , where he massacred tens of thousands in retribution for mockery of his Parthian pretensions. Architecturally, he commissioned the vast , begun under Severus around 206 and completed by 216, a complex spanning over 10 hectares with capacity for thousands, symbolizing imperial munificence but funded by conquest spoils and taxation. His rule ended in assassination on 8 April 217 near Carrhae by the during a Parthian campaign, averting further eastern entanglements but ushering in instability. Contemporary sources like , a senator who served under him, depict Caracalla as tyrannical and paranoid, privileging such elite perspectives that may underemphasize his success in maintaining frontier security through martial focus over civic harmony.

Personal Background

Names and Titles

Caracalla was born Lucius Septimius Bassianus on 4 April 188 CE in Lugdunum (modern Lyon, France), named after his paternal lineage from Septimius Severus and maternal grandfather Bassianus, a high priest from Emesa in Syria. In 195 CE, upon his elevation to the rank of Caesar by his father, Emperor Septimius Severus, his name was changed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus to forge a connection with the prestigious Antonine dynasty, emulating the nomenclature of earlier emperors like Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Pius. This renaming emphasized legitimacy through adoptive ties to the Nerva-Antonine line, a common Severan strategy to bolster dynastic claims amid recent civil strife. As co-emperor from 198 CE, following military victories in the East, he adopted the full imperial style Severus Antoninus , incorporating "Severus" to honor his father's and asserting continuity with prior rulers. Official titles accumulated over his reign included Germanicus Maximus after campaigns against Germanic tribes in 213 CE, Parthicus Maximus post-216 CE for eastern exploits, and standard honorifics like Pius Felix Augustus and , reflecting senatorial acclamations and religious authority. The nickname "Caracalla" (or more precisely Caracallus), by which he is commonly known in modern historiography, originated from his fondness for wearing the caracalla, a hooded Gallic tunic introduced to the Roman army, as noted in contemporary accounts; this informal moniker, initially derisive, persisted despite not appearing in inscriptions during his lifetime. Primary sources such as the Historia Augusta and Cassius Dio document this usage, underscoring its post-reign adoption in biographical traditions rather than official titulature.

Birth and Family Origins

Lucius Septimius Bassianus, later known as Caracalla, was born on 4 April 188 in (modern , ), a Roman colony in where his father served as pro praetore. He was the eldest son of Lucius Septimius Severus, born 11 April 145 in (near modern , ), from a wealthy equestrian family of mixed Punic and Italian descent. Severus's father, Publius Septimius Geta, descended from local Punic elites who had Romanized, while his mother, Fulvia Pia, originated from an Italian settler family in . His mother, , came from Emesa (modern , ), born around 170 to a prominent Arab priestly family; her father, , held the hereditary office of high priest to the sun god . The union of Severus and Domna, arranged for her astrological compatibility with him, linked provincial elites from and the , exemplifying the empire's expanding for non-Italic elites in the late second century.

Early Life and Upbringing

Lucius Septimius Bassianus, later known as Caracalla, was born on 4 April 188 in (modern ), , during his father 's tenure as governor of . His mother, , hailed from a wealthy priestly family in Emesa, , with her father serving as high priest of the sun god ; the Bassianus commemorated this maternal lineage. Septimius Severus originated from an equestrian family in , , blending Punic, possible Berber, and Italian ancestries through his forebears. The family included a younger son, Publius Septimius Geta, born on 7 March 189, likely in shortly after the family's relocation from . Following Severus's acclamation as emperor in 193 amid the , the household established itself in , where Bassianus spent his childhood amid the political turbulence of his father's consolidation of power. By 195, at around age seven, Bassianus was designated Caesar, signaling his early grooming for imperial succession and immersion in administrative and military matters under paternal oversight. Details of Bassianus's formal remain sparse in surviving accounts, but as the son of an emperor with provincial roots, he likely received instruction in Greek and Latin rhetoric, , and , supplemented by exposure to Eastern cultural influences from his mother's Syrian heritage. His upbringing emphasized martial discipline, foreshadowing his later military orientation, though primary ancient sources like and provide limited neutral detail on these formative years, often colored by retrospective hostility toward his adult rule. In 197 or 198, he adopted the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus to evoke legitimacy through association with the revered Antonine emperors, reflecting strategic dynastic maneuvering by Severus.

Rise to Imperial Power

Service Under Septimius Severus

Caracalla, born Lucius Septimius Bassianus in 188 AD, accompanied his father on military campaigns from a young age, beginning with the civil war against in around 194 AD when he was approximately six years old. This early exposure included subsequent operations in and during Severus' Parthian campaigns of 197–199 AD, though his role remained nominal given his youth of nine to eleven years. Severus elevated him to the rank of Caesar in 196 AD following victories over , signaling his grooming as heir amid ongoing consolidation of power. By 198 AD, after Severus' successful Parthian offensive that captured and expanded Roman control in , Caracalla was proclaimed co-Augustus at the age of ten, formalizing his imperial status and integrating him into administrative and symbolic military roles. Ancient historians such as note that Severus intended this elevation to secure dynastic continuity, though Caracalla's active participation in governance was limited until adolescence. Caracalla's most substantive military service occurred during the British campaign of 208–211 AD, when Severus, aged 63 and suffering from , mobilized around 40,000–50,000 troops to suppress Caledonian raids beyond . Arriving in Britain in 208 AD with both sons, Severus delegated operational command to the 20-year-old Caracalla, who directed legions in punitive expeditions northward, including a 210 AD foray beyond the aimed at extermination and resource extraction, as reported by Dio. These efforts involved fortifying defenses, such as repairs to , and inflicted heavy casualties on Caledonian tribes, though without decisive conquest due to harsh terrain and logistics. Tensions emerged during the campaign, with recording Caracalla's alleged attempts to poison Severus or hasten his death to assume sole power, reflecting fraternal rivalry with Geta, who handled civilian affairs in (). Severus died on February 4, 211 AD in , leaving an army loyal to the dynasty but advising his sons to "enrich the soldiers and scorn all others," per Dio—a maxim Caracalla later embodied. This period solidified Caracalla's reputation among troops through donatives and shared hardships, paving his path to independent rule. ![Jean-Baptiste Greuze painting depicting Septimius Severus and Caracalla][float-right]

Elevation to Caesar and Co-Augustus with Geta

In 196 CE, elevated his elder son, Lucius Septimius Bassianus (later known as Caracalla), to the rank of Caesar to secure the dynastic succession amid ongoing civil wars and eastern campaigns following his consolidation of power after defeating in 194 CE and in 197 CE. This appointment, at age eight, positioned Caracalla as , granting him imperial titles and responsibilities while Severus retained sole authority as . By 198 CE, during the Parthian campaign, Severus further promoted Caracalla to co-Augustus, bestowing full imperial powers including and tribunician authority, a move intended to legitimize joint rule and deter potential usurpers by associating the young prince directly with military victories, such as the sack of . Caracalla, then ten years old, assumed the name Antoninus to invoke the Antonine dynasty's prestige, and he accompanied his father on campaigns, participating in administrative and ceremonial duties to build his profile among the legions. Severus delayed similar elevation for his younger son, Publius Septimius Geta (born 189 CE), until 198 CE, when Geta was named Caesar at age nine, likely as a precautionary measure to balance familial tensions and reinforce the regime's stability without immediately diluting Caracalla's primacy. Geta's role remained subordinate, focused on courtly education under maternal influence from , while Caracalla gained frontline experience. The elevation of Geta to co-Augustus occurred in late 209 CE during Severus' British campaign against Caledonian tribes, where the emperor, facing health decline and reports of fraternal rivalry, sought to formalize equal succession by granting Geta imperium and the title Augustus alongside Caracalla and himself, proclaiming a tripartite rule to ensure continuity after his death. This decision, made in Eboracum (modern York), reflected Severus' pragmatic realpolitik—prioritizing military loyalty over brotherly harmony—but exacerbated underlying animosity, as evidenced by contemporary accounts of the siblings' mutual distrust even during joint provincial oversight. Both brothers held consulships (Caracalla in 202 CE with Severus, Geta in 209 CE), underscoring their shared but competitive path to power.

Joint Rule and Fratricide

Dynamics of Co-Emperorship


Following the death of on 4 February 211 AD in (modern ), his sons Lucius Septimius Bassianus (Caracalla) and Publius Septimius Geta were proclaimed co-emperors by the legions in Britain. The brothers, who had long harbored mutual antagonism exacerbated by competition for their father's favor, returned to separately, signaling the discord that would define their brief joint rule.
The co-emperorship lasted approximately ten months, from February to late December 211 AD, and was characterized by pervasive tension and factionalism. Caracalla, the elder at 23 years old with greater military experience from campaigns alongside Severus, and Geta, 22 and more oriented toward administrative roles, vied for supremacy by cultivating rival entourages among the , senators, and imperial freedmen. Ancient historians and describe how the brothers aligned with opposing factions in all matters, with Dio noting that "if the one attached himself to a certain faction, the other would be sure to choose the opposite side." This rivalry extended to daily life: they divided the imperial palace into separate quarters, dined apart, and avoided shared spaces without the mediation of their mother, , or personal guards. In a bid to resolve the impasse, the brothers convened advisers, including , to discuss partitioning the empire geographically—Caracalla to govern the European provinces and Geta the eastern territories with their respective legions. vehemently opposed the division, arguing it would fracture the Roman state irreparably, and the plan was abandoned amid ongoing hostilities. Both emperors engaged in parallel excesses, such as lavish spending and sexual improprieties, while plotting against one another, including failed attempts at poisoning through shared cooks and cupbearers. , a senator who experienced Caracalla's reign firsthand, portrays this period as one of administrative paralysis and court intrigue, though his account reflects senatorial disdain for the Severan dynasty's autocratic tendencies. corroborates the factional strife but emphasizes the logistical strains of dual rule on governance.

Assassination of Geta and Subsequent Purges

Following the death of on 4 February 211, Caracalla and Geta attempted to govern jointly as co-emperors, but their mutual distrust rapidly escalated into open hostility. The imperial palace was physically divided between their respective factions, with each brother maintaining separate guards and courtiers, fostering an atmosphere of civil strife within the . Caracalla, seeking sole rule, orchestrated Geta's on 19 December 211 in their mother Julia Domna's apartments under the pretext of reconciliation. According to , Caracalla personally struck the first blow with a concealed while embracing Geta, after which hidden soldiers emerged to complete the ; Geta succumbed in Julia Domna's arms, staining her with his blood. Cassius Dio's account similarly describes soldiers ambushing and stabbing Geta as he sought maternal mediation, though he emphasizes the premeditated nature of the trap set by Caracalla. Immediately after the killing, Caracalla hastened to the Praetorian Camp, where he distributed 2,500 denarii per man to the guards, proclaiming that he had eliminated Geta to avert a plot against his own life. This bribery secured their loyalty and prevented immediate backlash. The triggered widespread against Geta: Caracalla ordered the destruction of his brother's images, inscriptions, and across the , erasing his name from public monuments and official documents. In the ensuing purges, Caracalla systematically eliminated perceived supporters of Geta, targeting senators, equestrians, provincial governors, and even ordinary individuals bearing the name Septimius or associated with Geta's household. estimates that approximately 20,000 people—men, women, and children—were killed or proscribed in and the provinces during this , which lasted several months. Victims included high-ranking officials like the urban prefect Lucius Fabius Cilo and numerous freedmen, philosophers, and two-year-old children of Geta's associates; , the , had been executed earlier, but the post-assassination massacres extended to broader networks. notes nightly murders of governors and procurators sympathetic to Geta, underscoring the purge's reach into the administrative apparatus. was compelled to participate in celebrations of the act and forbidden from mourning, though she reportedly contemplated amid the horror. These actions consolidated Caracalla's autocratic power but alienated the and elite, marking a shift toward tyrannical rule.

Domestic Reforms and Administration

Constitutio Antoniniana

The , also known as the Antonine Constitution or Edict of Caracalla, was an imperial edict promulgated by Emperor Caracalla on 11 July 212 that extended to nearly all free inhabitants of the , with exceptions for —those who had surrendered as enemies or were freed slaves under specific restrictions. The edict's text survives in fragmentary form on a discovered in and now held in , , confirming its broad scope in granting civitas Romana to provincials who previously held only ius Latii or local citizenships. This measure effectively eliminated most distinctions between cives Romani and free peregrini, subjecting the newly enfranchised to , property rights, and obligations. Contemporary historian Cassius Dio, a Roman senator writing under later emperors, attributed Caracalla's primary motivation to fiscal gain: by expanding the citizenry, the emperor could impose the five percent inheritance tax (vicesima hereditatium) and manumission tax (vicesima libertatis), previously limited to citizens, thereby augmenting imperial revenues amid Caracalla's heavy military expenditures. Dio's account, preserved in his Roman History (Book 78.9.5), portrays the edict as a cynical ploy disguised as benevolence, noting that Caracalla "made all the people in his empire Roman citizens; nominally he was honouring them, but his real purpose was to increase his revenues by this means." While Dio's bias against Caracalla—stemming from the emperor's purges of senators—warrants caution, his proximity to events and senatorial perspective aligns with evidence of Caracalla's debasement of the denarius and tax hikes to fund campaigns and donatives. Alternative scholarly interpretations posit supplementary aims, such as easing military recruitment by removing legal barriers to legionary enlistment for provincials, who formed an increasing share of the army under the Severans, though these do not contradict Dio's fiscal emphasis. The edict's immediate effects included a surge in taxable subjects across provinces, from Gaul to Syria, standardizing legal protections like appeal rights (provocatio) while imposing uniform liabilities, such as vulnerability to the capitis deminutio penalties under Roman criminal law. It facilitated broader integration into Roman administrative structures, enabling non-Italians to hold municipal offices and access conubium (legal marriage) empire-wide, yet retained social hierarchies through wealth, origin, and ordo distinctions. Long-term, the measure strained provincial governance by diluting the exclusivity of citizenship—previously granted selectively since the Social War—and complicating tax enforcement on a now-vast citizen base, contributing to administrative overload as local elites navigated expanded Roman fiscal demands. Despite these challenges, it marked a pivotal shift toward universalism in Roman identity, prefiguring the empire's cultural homogenization, though without erasing ethnic or economic divides.

Monetary and Fiscal Policies

Caracalla substantially increased military pay upon consolidating power in 212 AD, raising stipends by roughly 50 percent to secure troop loyalty amid ongoing purges and campaigns. This policy, echoing his father Septimius Severus's earlier hikes, prioritized fiscal outlays for donatives and benefits, with soldiers receiving enhanced grain allotments and bonuses that escalated annual military costs to unsustainable levels. To fund these expenditures, Caracalla doubled taxes on Roman citizens from 5 to 10 percent and auctioned offices, priesthoods, and honors to the highest bidders, practices criticized by contemporaries like for eroding administrative integrity. He also intensified overall taxation, including levies on provincials newly enfranchised via the , broadening the tax base but straining provincial economies without corresponding infrastructure investments beyond select projects. Monetarily, Caracalla accelerated inherited from prior emperors, reducing the coin's silver content to approximately 50 percent by weight while maintaining nominal value, a measure to expand the money supply for military disbursements. This adjustment, framed by some modern analyses as a pragmatic response to shortages rather than pure fiscal exploitation, nonetheless contributed to inflationary pressures, as the diluted currency circulated alongside stable gold aurei, eroding for non-military sectors. Caracalla's reforms thus prioritized short-term imperial solvency over long-term , foreshadowing the third-century .

Infrastructural Developments

The most prominent infrastructural project associated with Caracalla was the completion of the Thermae Antoninianae, commonly known as the , a vast complex in . Construction began under his father, , around 206 AD, but Caracalla oversaw its dedication and substantial completion in 216 AD after assuming sole power. The complex spanned approximately 27 acres and could accommodate up to 8,000 bathers daily, featuring heated and unheated pools, exercise areas, libraries, and gardens, all constructed with massive bricks, marble veneers, and advanced heating systems. This undertaking employed thousands of laborers and vast quantities of materials, including over 6,000 tons of materials transported via aqueducts and roads, serving as a tool for Caracalla to cultivate public favor amid his autocratic rule. To support the baths' immense water requirements, estimated at over 1,200 cubic meters per hour, Caracalla commissioned the Aqua Antoniniana, a dedicated branch of the existing aqueduct extending about 22 kilometers from its source. This extension, built between 212 and 213 AD, ensured a reliable supply channeled through underground conduits and visible arches, some of which remain intact near the site. Complementing this, Caracalla constructed the Via Nova Antoniniana, a new road linking the baths directly to the Via Appia and , facilitating easier access for the populace and integrating the complex into Rome's urban fabric. Additionally, Caracalla erected the , a monumental and decorative fountain on the adjacent to the baths, featuring seven niches possibly symbolizing the seven planets or days of the week, adorned with cascading water and statues to enhance the area's grandeur. These projects, while showcasing engineering prowess, were financed through heavy taxation and military spoils, reflecting Caracalla's emphasis on visible largesse to offset his regime's repressive policies.

Military Campaigns and Policies

Alamannic and Germanic Conflicts

In 213 AD, following the consolidation of his sole rule after the assassination of his brother Geta, Emperor Caracalla directed his attention to the northern frontiers, where Germanic tribes posed threats to Roman territories in Raetia and along the Rhine. The Alamanni, a confederation of Suebic tribes inhabiting the upper Main River basin and Agri Decumates region, had begun incursions into Roman-held lands, marking their first historical attestation in this context. Caracalla assembled a substantial force, including legions such as the Legio II Traiana Fortis, and marched northward, initiating a punitive expedition to reassert imperial control. The campaign commenced with Caracalla crossing the into Alamannic territory, where he employed deceptive tactics to weaken the enemy. According to , a contemporary senator and historian critical of Caracalla's character, the emperor feigned peaceful negotiations, inviting Alamannic leaders to a supposed before ordering a surprise attack that resulted in the massacre of assembled tribesmen and the devastation of surrounding settlements. , another near-contemporary eyewitness source, describes Caracalla's forces ravaging the countryside, engaging in skirmishes, and compelling submissions through terror, though he notes the emperor's reluctance for decisive pitched battles in favor of guerrilla-style operations to bolster his troops' loyalty and plunder. These accounts, while colored by their authors' disdain for Caracalla's brutality, align on the expedition's aggressive prosecution, with Dio emphasizing fortification efforts: upon identifying defensible sites, Caracalla ordered the construction of forts and potential urban outposts to secure the . Caracalla also contended with neighboring Germanic groups, including the Cenni and possibly the Catti, extending operations into free beyond the frontier. Victories against these tribes, achieved through a combination of direct assaults and diplomatic intimidation—such as extracting hostages and tribute—culminated in the Alamanni's subjugation and temporary pacification. The Legio II Traiana Fortis received honors for its role, and Caracalla assumed the Germanicus Maximus, advertising the campaign's success in coinage and inscriptions despite the sources' portrayal of excessive violence, including the slaughter of non-combatants. This expedition, spanning into early 214 AD before shifting to the against other barbarians like the Carpi, reinforced the defenses but highlighted Caracalla's preference for short, propagandistic wars over sustained strategic reform, as critiqued by Dio for prioritizing personal glory.

Provincial Tours and Recruitment

Following the suppression of internal rivals in 212, Caracalla initiated military campaigns in the western provinces, traversing and the Germanic frontier regions along the and in 213 to confront the Alamannic tribes. These expeditions served dual purposes: repelling incursions and inspecting legionary garrisons, where he reviewed troop readiness and morale amid ongoing recruitment efforts to replenish losses from prior conflicts under his father . Inscriptions and coinage from this period attest to his presence in cities like Mogontiacum (modern ) and , where he conducted imperial sacrifices and distributed donatives to soldiers, incentivizing enlistment. By spring 214, Caracalla shifted focus eastward, embarking on a prolonged tour through the Danubian provinces—, , and —before proceeding to Asia Minor and , wintering in by late 214 or early 215. This itinerary, reconstructed from provincial inscriptions, milestones, and dedicatory altars, involved visits to key military bases such as and Philippopolis, where he emphasized loyalty oaths and troop musters in preparation for the impending Parthian offensive. The tour extended into 215–216, reaching as far as Antioch and possibly , allowing direct oversight of supply lines and fortifications. Recruitment formed a core objective of these tours, as Caracalla sought to expand the legionary forces beyond the approximately 33 legions inherited from his father, aiming for a standing army potentially enlarged by several thousand men to support aggressive frontier policies. The 212 Constitutio Antoniniana, which extended Roman citizenship to nearly all free inhabitants of the empire, directly facilitated this by broadening the pool of eligible legionaries, previously restricted to citizens; ancient commentators like Cassius Dio, who accompanied the emperor, noted the policy's role in swelling ranks, though primarily framed through fiscal motives. To attract volunteers, Caracalla raised legionary pay by about 50%—from 300 to 450 denarii annually—and issued substantial donatives, such as 2,500 denarii per soldier upon his accession, drawing recruits from urban centers and rural provinces during his inspections. Provincial evidence, including auxiliary discharge diplomas, indicates heightened enlistment of non-Italians, shifting the army's composition toward a more diverse, professionalized force reliant on imperial largesse rather than conscription. These measures temporarily bolstered military strength but strained finances, as the enlarged payroll—estimated at over 200 million denarii yearly—necessitated debasement of the denarius and increased taxation, per numismatic analyses. While effective for short-term mobilization, the recruitment drive reflected Caracalla's emulation of Alexander the Great, prioritizing quantity and loyalty over long-term sustainability, as critiqued in senatorial histories like Dio's for fostering dependency on barbarian levies.

Parthian War and Eastern Ambitions

Following his campaigns in in 213, Caracalla turned his attention to the eastern frontier, driven by a pronounced emulation of , whom he sought to imitate through military exploits and symbolic acts such as visiting the ruins of and organizing a Macedonian-style unit among his legions. In spring 214, at age 26, he departed for Antioch, where he amassed forces including eight legions and specialized cohorts, such as one recruited from and Laconia to bolster his army for the impending conflict. This mobilization reflected his expansionist ambitions, aiming to extend Roman control beyond the and exploit Parthia's internal divisions among claimants like Vologases VI, Artabanus IV, and emerging Sasanian forces. To justify the offensive, Caracalla proposed a alliance with Artabanus IV, Parthia's king, ostensibly to secure peace, but ancient historians like report this as a for , given Rome's lack of immediate provocation. In 216, without formal declaration, he launched the invasion from Antioch, advancing into Parthian and sacking the city of Arbela (modern ), where his troops massacred inhabitants and plundered extensively. His forces devastated the countryside, targeting settlements in Media Atropatene, while Caracalla wintered in , distributing largesse to troops and adopting Alexander-like rituals to inspire loyalty and project divine kingship. These actions, per Dio Cassius and —primary accounts from senators hostile to the —underscore Caracalla's causal intent to weaken through terror rather than , prioritizing over sustainable alliances. Caracalla's eastern vision extended to universal empire, mirroring by integrating eastern troops and pursuing syncretic honors, such as sacrifices at commemorative sites, though logistical strains from overextended supply lines and Parthian scorched-earth tactics limited deeper penetration. By early 217, as he marched toward further Parthian heartlands near Carrhae, internal dissent—fueled by fiscal burdens and perceived megalomania—culminated in his on April 8, halting the campaign before decisive battles could unfold. His successor inherited a fragile position, leading to Parthian counteroffensives and reparations, but Caracalla's raids had inflicted significant disruption, temporarily asserting Roman dominance without territorial gains.

Religious and Cultural Policies

Promotion of Serapis and Syncretism

Caracalla demonstrated a particular devotion to , the syncretic Greco-Egyptian deity who fused attributes of Greek and with the Egyptian Osiris-Apis bull god, portraying himself as the god's son or brother in certain contexts to legitimize his rule and appeal to eastern provincial loyalties. This promotion aligned with broader Severan interests in oriental cults, as evidenced by coinage issued from between 212 and 216 AD, where appears frequently on reverses—often standing left, holding a transverse scepter and grain measure (modius), or seated as a chthonic figure akin to , emphasizing fertility, underworld powers, and imperial protection. Such , analyzed in numismatic catalogs, reflects deliberate state sponsorship to disseminate the cult amid the empire's religious diversity following the 212 , which extended and necessitated unifying symbols. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence indicates Caracalla's support for ' infrastructure in , including the re-dedication of a temple on the to Serapis alongside (the goddess of welfare), transforming an earlier structure originally linked to Bacchus and into a center for the cult's mysteries and healing rites. This act, dated to around 212–215 AD, paralleled similar endorsements of paired -Serapis worship, as seen in expanded Isis temples, fostering by integrating Egyptian esotericism—such as oracular consultations and nocturnal initiations—with Roman civic piety and imperial propaganda. Through these measures, Caracalla advanced as a tool for cohesion in a multi-ethnic , equating ' universal salvific role with Roman state gods like and , while coins and dedications propagated the deity's appeal to soldiers, merchants, and new citizens from and the East. This policy, however, drew from Ptolemaic precedents rather than innovation, and ancient sources like note its personal dimension during Caracalla's 215 AD Egyptian tour, where he participated in rituals at before political tensions escalated—though biased accounts from Dio Cassius and , written post-assassination, may exaggerate for moral contrast. The cult's growth under his reign laid groundwork for later imperial adoptions, blending Hellenistic-Egyptian mysticism with Roman orthodoxy without supplanting traditional pantheons.

Personal Piety and Public Cults

Caracalla displayed personal piety through frequent sacrifices and veneration of deities, particularly those associated with Eastern mystery cults, as evidenced by his travels to sacred sites for ritual purposes. In 215 AD, during his tour of the eastern provinces, he visited and resided at the , the major temple of , where he participated directly in sacrificial ceremonies, indicating a hands-on engagement beyond mere political theater. This act aligned with his reported deep personal devotion to and , deities he idolized and to whom he offered regular sacrifices and sacred gifts, reflecting a blend of Roman imperial tradition with Hellenistic-Egyptian influences. His final journey in early 217 AD further illustrates this ; Caracalla marched to (modern ) explicitly to sacrifice at the ancient temple of the moon god , a site tied to Mesopotamian traditions that persisted into the Roman era, suggesting an openness to local lunar cults possibly syncretized with Roman deities like Luna or Sol. Ancient historians, though often hostile to Caracalla, corroborate his ritualistic fervor, noting his consultations with oracles and propitiatory offerings amid military campaigns, though these accounts must be weighed against their senatorial biases favoring more restrained . In terms of public cults, Caracalla upheld and expanded state-sponsored Roman religious practices to foster imperial unity, funding lavish public sacrifices, gladiatorial games with religious dedications, and festivals that integrated traditional gods like and Mars with emerging solar and Eastern elements. Post-Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 AD, his policies promoted an ecumenical approach, incorporating newly enfranchised provincials into the and requiring participation in state rituals, thereby universalizing Roman sacrificial obligations across the empire while tolerating select foreign practices under imperial oversight. He also propagated the divinization of his father through dedicated priesthoods and altars, ensuring continuity in the dynastic cult despite familial strife. This framework prioritized causal efficacy in maintaining loyalty via shared ritual devotion, rather than doctrinal uniformity.

Assassination

Circumstances of Death

On 8 April 217, during an expedition against the , Caracalla was assassinated near (modern ) in . The emperor had halted his march with a small escort to visit a roadside shrine or relieve himself when the attack occurred. The murder was plotted by , Caracalla's , who feared imminent execution amid the emperor's growing paranoia and history of eliminating perceived threats, including high officials. Macrinus enlisted Justinus Martialis (or Julius Martialis), a member of the cavalry guard whose brother had been killed on Caracalla's orders and who had recently been denied a personal favor or promotion by the emperor. Martialis approached Caracalla on foot as he dismounted and stabbed him in the back with a . Ancient accounts from and , both contemporary or near-contemporary historians, agree on the basic sequence but differ in emphasis; Dio attributes the plot directly to Macrinus's astrological consultations foretelling his own rise, while Herodian highlights Caracalla's vulnerability during the momentary halt. Martialis was immediately slain by Caracalla's accompanying cavalry before he could escape. These sources, written by Greek elites under later Severan influence, reflect senatorial and administrative biases against Caracalla's autocratic style but provide consistent details corroborated by numismatic and inscriptional evidence of the abrupt leadership transition.

Macrinus' Usurpation

Following Caracalla's assassination on April 8, 217 AD, , the , quickly moved to consolidate control over the and the legions in the eastern provinces. Ancient accounts indicate that had anticipated the emperor's suspicions and initiated the plot as a preemptive measure, leveraging his position to direct Julius Martialis, a whose brother had been executed by Caracalla, to carry out the killing during a roadside ceremony near Carrhae. To maintain order and obscure his involvement, initially circulated reports that Caracalla had succumbed to illness, a deception that allowed him to assess loyalties without immediate backlash. By , 217 AD, just three days after the , the —already under Macrinus's influence as —acclaimed him as , marking the first instance of an equestrian rising directly to the without prior senatorial rank or into the imperial family. and , the primary contemporary sources, describe how Macrinus distributed substantial donatives to the troops to secure their allegiance, promising 1,000 denarii per soldier while downplaying the change in leadership to avoid alienating Caracalla's veterans. This rapid proclamation bypassed the , which Macrinus addressed only afterward through letters affirming his loyalty to Roman traditions, though his equestrian origins drew skepticism from senatorial circles accustomed to aristocratic s. To legitimize his rule amid potential rivals, elevated his young son, , to the rank of Caesar shortly thereafter, framing the succession as a familial continuity despite lacking Severan blood ties. He also negotiated an immediate truce with the Parthian king Artabanus IV, returning seized territories and paying indemnities to avert further eastern conflict, a pragmatic move that prioritized stability over Caracalla's expansionist ambitions but exposed him to accusations of weakness. These actions, while stabilizing his initial hold on power, sowed seeds of discontent among the soldiery, who contrasted Macrinus's administrative focus with Caracalla's martial largesse, setting the stage for subsequent revolts. Primary sources like Dio, writing from a senatorial perspective, portray Macrinus's usurpation as opportunistic and legally dubious, reflecting elite biases against non-senatorial rule, whereas emphasizes the army's pragmatic endorsement.

Iconography and Material Culture

Portraiture and Sculptural Representations

Caracalla's portraiture emphasized a militaristic and severe , departing from the idealized styles of earlier emperors toward veristic realism that highlighted his furrowed brow, short-cropped hair, and intense gaze. This first portrait type, introduced around 211-212 AD upon his sole rule, features a deep downward frown on the forehead and a strong leftward head , symbolizing vigilance and command. Approximately 48 copies of this type survive, indicating widespread dissemination across the empire for public . Subsequent types evolved to accentuate military attributes, such as and in busts like the Getty Museum example, where the emperor turns his head leftward in apparent disapproval, underscoring his reputed and authoritarian demeanor. The Metropolitan Museum's head, carved in an imperial workshop circa 212-217 , exemplifies fine detailing of these traits, with sharp facial lines forming an "X" pattern from brow to nasolabial folds, a hallmark of the "Caracalla Master" style. Bronze representations, such as a Praetorian camp bust adorned with military decorations dated 212-217 , further project his self-image as a battle-hardened leader akin to . Sculptural programs in structures like the Baths of Caracalla incorporated freestanding statues and busts reinforcing this , blending portraiture with architectural to legitimize his rule amid familial strife and eastern campaigns. Earlier youthful portraits, such as those from his time under , show smoother features and longer hair, contrasting sharply with mature depictions that prioritized psychological intensity over classical harmony. These representations, authenticated through stylistic analysis and provenance like the , reveal Caracalla's deliberate cultivation of a "tough guy" image amid perceptions of tyranny.

Recent Archaeological Insights

Excavations at the Roman site of in (modern ) uncovered two marble altars in 2008, providing new evidence of Caracalla's military and provincial during his 214 CE Anatolian campaign. Dedicated by the cohors I Augusta , the altars feature reliefs of a winged figure bearing laurel wreaths, alongside military symbols such as shields and javelins, emphasizing themes of imperial triumph and divine favor. One inscription explicitly honors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla) as Pius Felix Augustus, while partial erasure on the other suggests post-assassination defacement, reflecting the volatility of his . In late 2023, emergency excavations near Nova Varbovka, , revealed a bronze medallion depicting Caracalla minted in , Asia Minor, commemorating his 214 CE visit to the sanctuary for healing. The medallion, found in a child's brick-masonry alongside other Roman-era artifacts, bears Greek inscriptions and scenes of imperial piety, highlighting non-circulating high-value items that propagated Caracalla's image as a divinely aided ruler beyond coinage. This find underscores the dissemination of his portraiture in eastern provinces, linking personal health rituals to broader material expressions of . Archaeological work in in 2023–2024 confirmed the existence of a 3rd-century at an urban site, dedicated to Caracalla and illustrating provincial monumental honors through architectural and potential elements evoking his persona. The structure's discovery reveals how local elites erected enduring tributes to the emperor's victories, contributing to iconographic across the empire's frontiers.

Historiography and Legacy

Biases in Ancient Sources

The ancient literary sources on Caracalla, primarily Cassius Dio's Roman History (Books 77-80), Herodian's History of the Empire after Marcus (Books 3-4), and the biographies in the Historia Augusta, exhibit pronounced hostility, depicting him as a paranoid megalomaniac prone to fratricide, mass slaughter, and fiscal recklessness. This negative consensus stems from the authors' elite, often senatorial or administrative perspectives, which resented Caracalla's elevation of the praetorian guard and legions over traditional Roman institutions, as evidenced by his doubling of soldiers' pay to 675 denarii annually in 213 AD and his purges of perceived senatorial rivals following Geta's murder on December 26, 211 AD. Cassius Dio, a Bithynian Greek senator who held consulships in 205 and 229 AD and survived Caracalla's reign as a junior official, provides the most detailed eyewitness account but infuses it with senatorial grievance. Dio lambasts Caracalla's "overreliance on the military and isolation from the ," portraying events like the Alexandria massacre of 215 AD—triggered by local mockery of his grief over Geta—as indiscriminate butchery claiming up to 20,000 lives, while downplaying Caracalla's strategic motives tied to emulation and provincial control. Scholars attribute Dio's animus to personal slights, including Caracalla's denial of Dio's senatorial promotions and the emperor's execution of other elites, which fostered a narrative framing Caracalla's six-year rule as a descent into autocratic terror rather than effective that secured frontiers. Herodian, a contemporary Palmyrene Greek likely in imperial administration, corroborates Dio's emphasis on familial dysfunction and brutality but offers a more provincial lens, criticizing Caracalla's Parthian campaign of 216-217 AD as vainglorious plunder rather than defensive against incursions. His narrative patterns, such as paralleling Caracalla's patricide-like with precedents, serve to underscore dynastic decay, potentially biased by Herodian's aim to explain the Severan collapse without endorsing military absolutism. While less encumbered by senatorial , Herodian's reliability suffers from selective omissions, like understating Caracalla's infrastructural legacies such as the Baths of Caracalla completed in 216 AD, in favor of moralistic . The 's late-4th-century compilations, drawing pseudonymously on lost sources like Marius Maximus, amplify these biases into caricature, inventing anecdotes of Caracalla's alleged incestuous affections and gladiatorial excesses to align with post-Severan vilification of "oriental" despots. Its factual distortions, including fabricated senatorial speeches and chronological errors, render it the least credible, reflecting retrospective against the dynasty amid the empire's Christianizing elite disdain for pagan militarists. Cross-verification with non-literary evidence, such as the edict of 212 AD preserved in papyri granting citizenship to over 30 million provincials for and loyalty, and victory coins celebrating Parthian successes, indicates that while core atrocities like Geta's killing—corroborated by contemporary ostraca and damnatio inscriptions—are factual, the sources' hyperbolic psychologizing likely exaggerates to delegitimize Caracalla's army-centric governance model. This senatorial tilt, prioritizing civilian decorum over martial efficacy, has skewed perceptions, prompting modern reassessments to weigh archaeological testimonies of stability, like expanded legionary forts along the , against the textual invective.

Damnatio Memoriae and Erasure Efforts

Following the assassination of Caracalla on 8 April 217 CE near Carrhae during his Parthian campaign, the Roman Senate, which had endured extensive purges and financial demands under his rule, openly rejoiced and debated condemning his memory. However, no formal damnatio memoriae was decreed, as the new emperor Macrinus prioritized placating the legions that revered Caracalla as a martial exemplar akin to Alexander the Great. Macrinus instead pursued selective policy reversals, such as abolishing certain taxes imposed by and granting amnesty to exiles, to curry senatorial favor without risking military backlash through systematic erasures. Ancient accounts indicate that while some private or local defacements of images may have occurred amid senatorial animosity, imperial-level efforts to chisel 's name from inscriptions, melt down his coinage, or topple statues were absent, preserving his visibility in public spaces. This restraint extended into the subsequent Severan restoration under , who in 218 CE claimed kinship with Caracalla—portraying himself as a or even —to harness the deceased emperor's popularity with the troops for legitimacy, thereby reinforcing rather than erasing his predecessor's legacy. Surviving material evidence, including triumphal arches and dedicatory inscriptions from Caracalla's , remains largely intact without traces of post-mortem overwriting, underscoring the failure of any nascent erasure initiatives.

Medieval to Early Modern Interpretations

In late antique epitomes of Roman history, which served as primary sources for medieval chroniclers, Caracalla was consistently depicted as a cruel and unstable ruler inheriting his father Septimius Severus's harsh traits but exceeding them in savagery. Eutropius, in his Breviarium (c. 369 CE), described him as "very much of his father's disposition, but somewhat more rough and uncivil," noting his of Geta and the execution of numerous others before his own by near Carrhae after a seven-year . Similarly, Paulus Orosius in Historiarum Adversus Paganos (c. 417–418 CE) portrayed Caracalla as surpassing Severus in cruelty, slaying his brother Geta in their mother's arms and massacring 20,000 suspected supporters, framing his death as a divine from tyranny. These concise, moralizing accounts, emphasizing and bloodshed over administrative reforms like the , dominated transmission of Severan history into the medieval period, where they were recopied in monastic chronicles and encyclopedias such as those of and without significant alteration or rehabilitation. Medieval European scholars, often viewing pagan emperors through a Christian lens of providential judgment, reinforced this image of Caracalla as a paradigmatic tyrant whose vices exemplified imperial decadence preceding Christianity's triumph. In works like the Chronicon of Prosper of Aquitaine (5th century, influencing later Carolingian histories), Caracalla appeared briefly as a fratricidal monster whose rule hastened Rome's moral decline, aligning with narratives of pagan excess punished by God. This tradition persisted in 12th–13th-century compilations, such as Godfrey of Viterbo's Pantheon, which echoed Eutropius in condemning Caracalla's parricidal tendencies and arbitrary killings, subordinating any mention of his military campaigns or infrastructure—such as the Baths of Caracalla—to his personal depravity. The scarcity of alternative sources, compounded by partial damnatio memoriae erasing favorable inscriptions, ensured Caracalla evoked little admiration, serving instead as a cautionary figure in didactic histories contrasting virtuous rulers like Constantine. During the early modern Renaissance and Enlightenment, renewed access to ancient texts via Byzantine manuscripts and Italian humanists sustained the tyrannical archetype, though some noted his martial vigor amid critiques of excess. Historians like Flavio Biondo in Historiarum ab Inclinatione Romanorum Imperii Decades (1439–1453) reiterated ancient biases from Dio and Herodian, decrying Caracalla's fratricide and purges as symptomatic of post-Augustan corruption, while overlooking potential strategic motives in his eastern campaigns. By the 18th century, Edward Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789) crystallized this view, labeling Caracalla "the common enemy of mankind" for his vices, cowardice, and debasement of the imperial dignity, despite acknowledging his military talents and the citizenship edict's fiscal pragmatism—interpreting the latter not as inclusive benevolence but as a cynical tax expansion. Such assessments prioritized senatorial-era sources' animus over empirical reevaluation, perpetuating Caracalla's infamy as a benchmark for autocratic failure.

Modern Scholarly Assessments and Debates

Modern historians have increasingly challenged the ancient portrayal of Caracalla as an archetypal , attributing much of the negative tradition to the senatorial biases of sources like and , who wrote under later regimes hostile to the Severan dynasty's militaristic style. Scholars such as Anthony R. Birley emphasize Caracalla's effectiveness as a soldier-emperor, noting his successful campaigns against Germanic tribes in 213 AD, where he secured the frontier, and his Parthian expedition in 216–217 AD, which expanded Roman influence in before his death. This reevaluation posits that his reputed cruelty, including of Alexandria's population in 215 AD (estimated at 10,000–20,000 deaths), served strategic purposes like consolidating power and deterring opposition, rather than unbridled madness, though debates persist on whether intensified after his brother Geta's in 211 AD. A central debate concerns the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 AD, which granted to nearly all free inhabitants of the empire, fundamentally altering legal and fiscal structures by subjecting provincials to the capitatio previously limited to citizens. Traditional views, echoing Dio's claim of fiscal opportunism to double tax revenue amid military pay hikes (from 300 to 450 annually per ), have been critiqued by scholars like Alex Imrie, who argue for multifaceted motivations including religious unification under worship—evidenced by Caracalla's dedications in and —and enhanced from a broadened citizen base, potentially stabilizing the empire's 33 legions amid ongoing frontier pressures. Critics, however, highlight short-term economic strain, as the edict exacerbated inflation through currency debasement (reducing silver content in the denarius by up to 50%), contributing to fiscal instability that burdened successors. Empirical analyses of papyri from confirm rapid administrative integration but uneven implementation, fueling ongoing contention over whether the edict represented pragmatic empire-building or cynical exploitation. Caracalla's military policies, including doubling the army's size to around 500,000 men and emulating through phalangite formations observed by Dio near the Hellespont in 214 AD, are assessed as innovative yet unsustainable, prioritizing via donatives over long-term . Recent numismatic studies reveal emphasizing martial virtues on coinage, such as Victoria and Parthica types post-216 AD, supporting arguments that Caracalla strengthened imperial cohesion in a diverse but at the of economic overextension, with donatives totaling over 1 billion sesterces. Debates on his psychological state draw from Herodian's accounts of erratic behavior, like sleeping among troops, but modern analyses, informed by comparative studies of autocratic rule, caution against pathologizing without contemporary diagnostics, instead framing actions through causal lenses of dynastic insecurity and the Severan model's reliance on praetorian and legionary support. Ethnicity debates, revived in works questioning his "Africanus" identity from origins, underscore how modern scholarship navigates ancient prejudices against provincial rulers, recognizing Caracalla's Punic-Berber heritage as influencing his universalist policies without diminishing Roman imperial identity.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.