Brothers Divided: The Tragic Tale of Caracalla and Geta from Gladiator II

The story of Caracalla and Geta, sons of Emperor Septimius Severus, is a tragic tale of rivalry, betrayal, and murder that deeply impacted Roman history. Born into the powerful Severan dynasty, Caracalla (Lucius Septimius Bassianus) and Geta (Publius Septimius Geta) were raised as heirs to the throne. However, their personalities clashed early on: Caracalla, bold and militaristic, aspired to be a warrior-emperor, while Geta was diplomatic and intellectual, favoring civic duties. Their differences intensified as they grew older, each gathering supporters within Rome’s distinct social circles, with Caracalla aligning with the military and Geta gaining favor among senators and intellectuals.

After their father’s death in 211 CE, the two brothers were meant to rule jointly, but this arrangement quickly deteriorated. Their distrust was evident as they divided the imperial palace, each taking separate wings and creating distinct courts with separate administrative staff and guards. This dysfunctional governance hindered Rome’s stability and generated widespread confusion. They continuously clashed over imperial responsibilities, with each viewing the other as a rival rather than a partner. Their rivalry grew so bitter that both reportedly plotted assassinations against one another.

In a final act of treachery, Caracalla lured Geta to a reconciliation meeting in late December 211 CE in the presence of their mother, Julia Domna, as a show of good faith. However, this meeting turned out to be a trap; Caracalla’s guards ambushed Geta, stabbing him to death as he tried to flee to his mother for protection. Caracalla then initiated a brutal purge of Geta’s supporters, ordering executions and enforcing a “damnatio memoriae” against his brother—erasing Geta’s name and image from records and monuments across the empire. This policy of obliterating Geta’s memory extended even to senators and poets associated with him, with ancient sources estimating that thousands were killed or exiled.

Now ruling alone, Caracalla attempted to strengthen his position through grandiose gestures like the Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 CE, granting Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants, partly as a tax move but also to unify the empire’s diverse population. Nonetheless, his reign was characterized by heavy militarism and harsh oppression, alienating much of Rome’s elite and leading to costly campaigns, including a violent invasion of Parthia inspired by his fascination with Alexander the Great.

Caracalla’s rule ultimately sowed division rather than unity, and he was assassinated in 217 CE by one of his soldiers, allegedly on orders from the Praetorian prefect Macrinus, who then became emperor. The tragic arc of Caracalla and Geta serves as a reminder of how personal and familial conflicts can destabilize empires. Their tale illustrates the dangerous potential of dynastic ambition, the fragility of power, and the devastating consequences of unbridled rivalry within the Roman ruling class.

Transcript

In the annals of Roman history, the tale of Caracalla and Geta—sons of Emperor Septimius Severus—is one steeped in betrayal, ambition, and familial rivalry. Their story exemplifies the intense personal and political conflicts that often characterized the Roman imperial family. Caracalla and Geta’s shared rule ended in tragedy, marking one of the more dramatic familial conflicts within the Roman Empire. Their relationship, initially born of brotherhood, deteriorated into a rivalry that reshaped Roman history and left a legacy of infamy.

Early Life and Family Background

Caracalla, born Lucius Septimius Bassianus in 188 CE, and Geta, born Publius Septimius Geta in 189 CE, were raised within the powerful and ambitious Severan dynasty. Their father, Emperor Septimius Severus, was a North African general who rose to power amidst the instability following Emperor Commodus's assassination. Severus’s rule was characterized by a determined consolidation of power, military reforms, and efforts to secure the empire’s borders. He cultivated an image of strength and sought to cement his legacy by designating both of his sons as his successors.

Although Caracalla and Geta grew up as heirs to the throne, their personalities and interests diverged sharply. Caracalla, the elder son, was bold, hot-tempered, and inclined towards military matters, while Geta was perceived as more restrained and intellectual. The differences between them became more pronounced as they grew older, and their father’s ambitions for them as co-rulers only intensified the tension.

The Death of Septimius Severus and the Rise of Joint Rule

In 211 CE, while leading a campaign in Britain, Septimius Severus fell ill and passed away. His death left Caracalla and Geta to rule as joint emperors. Severus had instructed his sons to "live in harmony, enrich the soldiers, and ignore everyone else." Yet, this idealistic vision of co-rulership was fundamentally flawed. Caracalla and Geta harbored profound mutual animosity, viewing one another as competitors rather than partners in governance.

The initial months of their shared rule were marred by petty rivalries and stark disagreements. They divided the imperial palace, creating separate living quarters and even splitting public duties. Ancient sources suggest that the two emperors were constantly guarded, fearing assassination by each other’s supporters. Their intense personal disdain translated into a dysfunctional administration that weakened Rome’s central authority and sowed confusion among the aristocracy and military alike.

Rivalry and Hatred: Causes of Conflict

The rivalry between Caracalla and Geta began in childhood and was aggravated by personality differences, political ambitions, and the pressures of co-rulership. Here are some key aspects and incidents that fueled their hatred for one another:

• Contrasting Personalities and Ambitions
  • Caracalla’s Military Focus: Caracalla was brash, aggressive, and militaristic. He saw himself as a warrior-emperor, deeply admiring figures like Alexander the Great and often aspiring to replicate his conquests. This ambition for military glory was sometimes at odds with administrative and civilian concerns, leading to a more heavy-handed and ruthless approach.
  • Geta’s Intellectual Inclination: In contrast, Geta was known for his more intellectual and diplomatic approach to ruling. He was seen as level-headed and preferred the civic aspects of governance, tending to be more popular among the senators and Rome’s intellectual circles. Geta’s preference for diplomacy and internal stability created friction with Caracalla, who saw such qualities as weaknesses.
• Division of Power and Living Arrangements
  After their father’s death, Septimius Severus left explicit instructions for his sons to rule together. However, this arrangement quickly broke down as the brothers grew increasingly distrustful of each other:
  • Separate Residences and Administration: They divided the imperial palace in Rome, each taking separate wings, with distinct administrative staff and even personal guards. This physical separation symbolized their ideological split and made the palace feel more like two separate courts, each with competing factions of supporters.
  • Disputes Over Public Duties: The brothers argued over the distribution of imperial responsibilities. They would disagree on decisions in Senate meetings, public ceremonies, and even military directives. This constant bickering hampered efficient governance and confused the Roman public, further deepening their resentment.
• Competing for Public Support and Favor
  Both Caracalla and Geta sought to win the favor of different groups within Roman society:
  • Support from the Army vs. the Senate: Caracalla courted the military, offering increased pay and privileges to ensure their loyalty. Meanwhile, Geta was more aligned with the Senate and intellectual elite, which was resented by Caracalla, who viewed Geta’s support as a threat to his authority.
  • Favoring Different Supporters and Friends: Caracalla and Geta each cultivated their own circles, often favoring allies who were openly hostile to the other brother’s associates. Rumors and intrigue flourished, with each brother reportedly spying on the other’s meetings and plotting against the other’s supporters. This rivalry led to a series of smaller, symbolic acts of one-upmanship that only deepened their distrust.

Assassination of Geta

The assassination of Geta was a carefully orchestrated act of betrayal by his brother Caracalla, culminating in one of the most infamous fratricides in Roman history. In late December 211 CE, Caracalla extended a deceptive olive branch to Geta, proposing a meeting to reconcile their differences in the presence of their mother, Julia Domna, hoping her presence would assuage any suspicion. Unbeknownst to Geta, Caracalla had ordered armed guards to hide nearby, ready to strike. As Geta entered the room to speak with his brother, Caracalla’s guards attacked him, stabbing him repeatedly as he tried to flee into his mother’s arms, seeking her protection. Julia Domna, forced to witness the brutal murder of her younger son, was left devastated, while Caracalla took swift control of the empire, immediately launching a campaign to erase Geta’s memory and eliminate any of his supporters, thus consolidating his power as sole ruler.

Aftermath: Damnatio Memoriae and Retaliation

Geta's death was followed by a brutal purge of his supporters and anyone who could be associated with his cause. Caracalla initiated a widespread “damnatio memoriae” against his brother, a policy aimed at erasing Geta’s name from public records and monuments. Statues and images of Geta were destroyed, his name was chiseled from inscriptions, and anyone loyal to him faced brutal repression. Cassius Dio records that nearly 20,000 people, including senators, soldiers, and even poets, were executed or exiled for their association with Geta, indicating the scope and intensity of Caracalla’s retaliation.

The Reign of Caracalla

With Geta eliminated, Caracalla reigned as sole emperor. Although his rule was tainted by the shadow of fratricide, Caracalla sought to solidify his position and win public favor through grandiose military campaigns and significant policy changes. One of his most notable decrees was the Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 CE, which granted Roman citizenship to nearly all free inhabitants of the empire. While this edict may have been partially motivated by a desire to increase tax revenues, it also represented an ideological shift, aiming to unify the diverse empire under a single identity of Roman citizenship.

Despite this inclusive gesture, Caracalla's rule was predominantly characterized by an oppressive and militaristic approach. His campaigns were costly and often brutal, such as his invasion of Parthia, which became infamous for its excessive violence. Caracalla’s fascination with Alexander the Great fueled his militarism; he saw himself as a successor to the legendary conqueror, often modeling his image and actions after him.

Caracalla's Legacy and Final Days

The legacy of Caracalla is one steeped in contradiction. While he sought to unify the empire and expand its territories, his rule left Rome more divided and weakened than before. His policies alienated much of the elite and eroded public trust, and his brutal methods fostered widespread resentment.

In 217 CE, while on a campaign near Edessa, Caracalla was assassinated by one of his own soldiers. The killing was allegedly orchestrated by Macrinus, a Praetorian prefect who succeeded him as emperor. Caracalla’s death brought an end to the Severan dynasty’s ambitious, albeit fractious, vision for Rome’s future.

Conclusion

The story of Caracalla and Geta is a tragic example of how personal rivalries and ambition can shape the course of history. Theirs was a story of two brothers torn apart by jealousy, distrust, and the lust for power. The resulting fratricide, one of the most infamous in Roman history, left an indelible mark on the empire and served as a cautionary tale of the dangers of dynastic ambition and political infighting. Through the lens of their relationship, one can witness the perils faced by Rome’s ruling class—a reminder of the fragility of power and the often-destructive consequences of absolute authority.