Caracalla

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]

Caracalla's father appointed Caracalla 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 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, a woman whom he hated, though for what reason is unknown.[16] The wedding took place between the 9 and the 15 April.[13]

Caracalla & Geta: Bearfight in the Colosseum, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, 1907

In 205, Caracalla was consul for the second time, in company with Geta – his brother's first consulship.[13] By 205 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, 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]

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 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 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]

Portrait of Caracalla (AD 212–217) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

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[lower-alpha 1] – 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.[lower-alpha 2][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]

Bust of Julia Domna (Museo Chiaramonti)

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.

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 deputation of leading citizens who had unsuspectingly 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]

The Baths of Caracalla

Construction on the Baths of Caracalla 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 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]

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]

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.[64][65] 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.[64][65][66] 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.[66] As a consequence, the phalangarii of Legio II Parthica may not have been pikemen, but rather standard battle line troops or possibly triarii.[66]

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.[65]

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][67] Artabanus refused the offer, realizing that the proposal was merely an attempt to unite the kingdom of Parthia under the control of Rome.[67] 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.[67] In the following winter, Caracalla retired to Edessa, modern Şanlıurfa in south-east Turkey, and began making preparations to renew the campaign by spring.[67]

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.[78]

Bronze portrait of Caracalla (Antikensammlung Berlin)

Caracalla wearing nemes and uraeus headdress as Roman pharaoh, from the Nile bank opposite Terenouthis. (Alexandria National Museum)[79]

Caracalla is presented in the ancient sources of 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]

Amethyst intaglio of Caracalla, later re-carved as Saint Peter inscribed with the Greek: Ο ΠΕΤΡΟϹ, translit. o Petros, lit. "the stone" (treasury of Sainte-Chapelle)

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]

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, 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]

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]