Fort King Site
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
U.S. National Historic Landmark
Historical marker near site of the fort
Location:	Ocala, Florida
Coordinates:	29°11′20″N 82°04′56″W / 29.18889°N 82.08222°W / 29.18889; -82.08222Coordinates: 29°11′20″N 82°04′56″W / 29.18889°N 82.08222°W / 29.18889; -82.08222
Built:	1827[2]
Governing body:	Local government
NRHP Reference#:	04000320[1]
Significant dates
Added to NRHP:	February 24, 2004[3]
Designated NHL:	February 24, 2004[4]

Fort King (also known as Camp King or Cantonment King) was a United States military fort in north central Florida. It was named after Colonel William King, commander of Florida's Fourth Infantry and the first governor of the provisional West Florida region. The fort was built in 1827, and became the genesis of the city of Ocala. Located near the corner of East Fort King Street and 39th Avenue in Ocala, the site is a U.S. National Historic Landmark (designated as such on February 24, 2004).

History[link]

Prehistory[link]

Archaeological investigations have indicated that the area was inhabited prior to the arrival of the Spanish in the area. At least two periods of occupation have been identified: between 6500 and 2000 B.C., and 200 to 1500 A.D.

The fort[link]

Fort King was constructed in 1827 as a buffer between the Seminoles (to the south in the Moultrie Creek Treaty reservation area) and whites settling in the region. It sat at the nexus of a system of military roads. From the fort, one could travel easily (for the era) on the Fort King Road to Fort Brooks (near Orange Springs), Fort McCoy, a ford at the St. Johns River which would become the town of Astor, Palatka, Jacksonville, and Fort Brooke (on Tampa Bay), amongst others. It subsequently fell into disuse after 1829.

In 1832, the fort was active again to help in the relocation of the Seminoles westward as part of the Treaty of Payne's Landing. The Second Seminole War, beginning in 1835, made the fort one of the most important during the next seven years, due to its strategic location. Abandoned for nearly a year between mid-1836 to early 1837 after the Seminoles burned it, the fort still remained functional until the war's end in 1842.

After the founding of Marion County, the fort became its first courthouse in 1844. Eventually, though, the building was abandoned for the last time, and the fort deconstructed to provide building material for the early residents.

Recent[link]

Historical marker for fort's cemetery

Closer view of plaque

Today there are no signs of the fort, and the site is undeveloped, vacant land, in the middle of a residential area. Two historical markers exist, one marking the approximate location of the fort itself, the other at the cemetery for it. Some of the area is publicly owned, and some is private.

References[link]

External links[link]

• About Marion County at Marion County Board of County Commissioners
• Explore Marion County Cities - Ocala at Ocala, Marion County Chamber of Commerce
• Ocala Star Banner
  • Archaeologists digging up Fort King's past
  • Fort King built to keep Whites and Seminoles from fighting
  • Marion County History's Silent Sentinel - Fort King
  • 70 Years later, Fort King Marker rededicated
  • Florida's "Crossroads"
  • Fort King site selected for national protection
• Marion County, Part 2 - Fort King and Fort Drane at The Florida Seminole War 1792-1859
• Florida Forts at American Forts Network

v t e U.S. National Register of Historic Places in Florida Lists by county Alachua Baker Bay Bradford Brevard Broward Calhoun Charlotte Citrus Clay Collier Columbia DeSoto Dixie Duval Escambia Flagler Franklin Gadsden Gilchrist Glades Gulf Hamilton Hardee Hendry Hernando Highlands Hillsborough Holmes Indian River Jackson Jefferson Lake Lee Leon Levy Liberty Madison Manatee Marion Martin Miami-Dade Monroe Nassau Okaloosa Okeechobee Orange Osceola Palm Beach Pasco Pinellas Polk Putnam Santa Rosa Sarasota Seminole St. Johns St. Lucie Sumter Suwannee Taylor Union Volusia Wakulla Walton Washington Lists by city Miami Other lists Black Public Schools Bridges Multiple Property Submissions National Historic Landmarks Woman's clubhouses Keeper of the Register History of the National Register of Historic Places Property types Historic district Contributing property

Krak des Chevaliers is one of the best-preserved Crusader castles.^[1]

Bourtange star fort, restored to 1750 situation, Groningen (province), Netherlands.

The well preserved Bulgarian medieval fort Baba Vida.

Fortifications are military constructions and buildings designed for defence in warfare and military bases. Humans have constructed defensive works for many thousands of years, in a variety of increasingly complex designs. The term is derived from the Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make").

Nomenclature[link]

Many military installations are known as forts, although they are not always fortified. Larger forts may class as fortresses; smaller ones formerly often bore the name of fortalices. The word fortification can also refer to the practice of improving an area's defence with defensive works. City walls are fortifications but not necessarily called fortresses.

The art of setting out a military camp or constructing a fortification traditionally classifies as castramentation, since the time of the Roman legions. The art/science of laying siege to a fortification and of destroying it has the popular name of siegecraft or 'siege warfare' and the formal name of poliorcetics. In some texts this latter term also applies to the art of building a fortification.

Fortification is usually divided into two branches, namely permanent fortification and field fortification. Permanent fortifications are erected at leisure, with all the resources that a state can supply of constructive and mechanical skill, and are built of enduring materials. Field fortifications, for example breastworks, are extemporized by troops in the field, perhaps assisted by such local labour and tools as may be procurable and with materials that do not require much preparation, such as earth, brushwood and light timber, or sandbags (see sangar).

There is also an intermediate branch known as semi-permanent fortification. This is employed when in the course of a campaign it becomes desirable to protect some locality with the best imitation of permanent defences that can be made in a short time, ample resources and skilled civilian labour being available.

Castles are fortifications which are regarded as being distinct from the generic fort or fortress in that it describes a residence of a monarch or noble and commands a specific defensive territory.

History[link]

Ancient[link]

From very early history to modern times, walls have been a necessity for many cities. Uruk in ancient Sumer (Mesopotamia) is one of the world's oldest known walled cities. The Ancient Egyptians also built fortresses on the frontiers of the Nile Valley to protect against invaders from its neighbouring territories. Many of the fortifications of the ancient world were built with mud brick, leaving many no more than mounds of dirt for today's archaeologists.

A model of the prehistoric town of Los Millares 3000 BC Spain, with its walls.

Artists impression of the battlements at Buhen fortress in Egypt about 1800BC

The Assyrians deployed large labour forces to build new palaces, temples and defensive walls.^[2]

Some settlements in the Indus Valley Civilization were also fortified. By about 3500 B.C., hundreds of small farming villages dotted the Indus floodplain. Many of these settlements had fortifications and planned streets. The stone and mud brick houses of Kot Diji were clustered behind massive stone flood dykes and defensive walls, for neighbouring communities bickered constantly about the control of prime agricultural land.^[3] Mundigak (c. 2500 B.C.) in present day south-east Afghanistan has defensive walls and square bastions of sun dried bricks.^[4]

Model of Ishtar Gate and part of the walls of Babylon built by Nebuchadnezzar

Babylon was one of the most famous cities of the ancient world, especially as a result of the building program of Nebuchadnezzar, who expanded the walls and built the Ishtar Gate.

Exceptions were few—notably, ancient Sparta and ancient Rome did not have walls for a long time, choosing to rely on their militaries for defence instead. Initially, these fortifications were simple constructions of wood and earth, which were later replaced by mixed constructions of stones piled on top of each other without mortar.

The Lion Gate at Mycenae Greece 1600 BC

In ancient Greece, large stone walls had been built in Mycenaean Greece, such as the ancient site of Mycenae (famous for the huge stone blocks of its 'cyclopean' walls). In classical era Greece, the city of Athens built a long set of parallel stone walls called the Long Walls that reached their guarded seaport at Piraeus.

heuneburg a Celtic fort in Germany 600 BC, with mudbrick walls

In Central Europe, the Celts built large fortified settlements known as oppida, whose walls seem partially influenced by those built in the Mediterranean. The fortifications were continuously being expanded and improved. Around 600 BC, in Heuneburg, Germany, forts were constructed with a limestone foundation supported by a mudbrick wall approximately 4 meters tall, probably topped by a roofed walkway, thus reaching a total height of 6 meters. The wall was clad with lime plaster, regularly renewed. Towers protruded outwards from the wall.^[5]

The Great Wall of China.

Large tempered earth (i.e. rammed earth) walls were built in ancient China since the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600-1050 BC), as the capital at ancient Ao had enormous walls built in this fashion (see siege for more info). Although stone walls were built in China during the Warring States (481-221 BC), mass conversion to stone architecture did not begin in earnest until the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD).

In terms of China's longest and most impressive fortification, the Great Wall had been built since the Qin Dynasty (221-207 BC), although its present form was mostly an engineering feat and remodelling of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD). The large walls of Pingyao serve as one example. Likewise, the famous walls of the Forbidden City in Beijing were established in the early 15th century by the Yongle Emperor.

The Romans fortified their cities with massive, mortar-bound stone walls. The most famous of these are the largely extant Aurelian Walls of Rome and the Theodosian Walls of Constantinople, together with partial remains elsewhere. These are mostly city gates, like the Porta Nigra in Trier or Newport Arch in Lincoln.

Hadrian's Wall was built by the Roman Empire across the width of what is now northern England following a visit by Roman Emperor Hadrian (AD 76–138) in AD 122.

Medieval[link]

Genoese fortress in Sudak, Ukraine

Ávila city walls, Spain

Roman forts and hill forts were the main antecedents of castles in Europe, which emerged in the 9th century in the Carolingian Empire.

Rumelihisarı, İstanbul, Turkey

The Early Middle Ages saw the creation of some towns built around castles. These cities were only rarely protected by simple stone walls and more usually by a combination of both walls and ditches. From the 12th century AD hundreds of settlements of all sizes were founded all across Europe, which very often obtained the right of fortification soon afterwards.

Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork: the world’s largest brick gothic castle, in Poland

The fortified city of Valença, Portugal as seen from across the Minho River (Portugal's northern border with Spain)

Table of Fortification, from the 1728 Cyclopaedia.

Austro-Hungarian Fort 31 Benedykt of Kraków fortress

Austro-Hungarian Fort I "Salis Soglio" of Przemyśl fortress

Ranikot Fort in Sindh, one of the largest forts in the world.

The founding of urban centres was an important means of territorial expansion and many cities, especially in eastern Europe, were founded precisely for this purpose during the period of Eastern Colonisation. These cities are easy to recognise due to their regular layout and large market spaces. The fortifications of these settlements were continuously improved to reflect the current level of military development.

During the Renaissance era, the Venetians raised great walls around cities threatened by the Ottoman empire. The finest examples are, among others, in Nicosia (Cyprus) and Chania (Crete), and they still stand, to this day.

Early modern[link]

Medieval-style fortifications were largely made obsolete by the arrival of cannons on the 14th century battlefield. Fortifications in the age of blackpowder evolved into much lower structures with greater use of ditches and earth ramparts that would absorb and disperse the energy of cannon fire. Walls exposed to direct cannon fire were very vulnerable, so were sunk into ditches fronted by earth slopes.

This placed a heavy emphasis on the geometry of the fortification to allow defensive cannonry interlocking fields of fire to cover all approaches to the lower and thus more vulnerable walls.

The evolution of this new style of fortification can be seen in transitional forts such as Sarzanello^[6] in North West Italy which was built between 1492 and 1502. Sarzanello consists of both crenellated walls with towers typical of the medieval period but also has a ravelin like angular gun platform screening one of the curtain walls which is protected from flanking fire from the towers of the main part of the fort. Another example are the fortifications of Rhodes which were frozen at 1522 so that Rhodes is the only European walled town that still shows the transition between the classical medieval fortification and the modern ones.^[7]

Fortifications also extended in depth, with protected batteries for defensive cannonry, to allow them to engage attacking cannon to keep them at a distance and prevent them bearing directly on the vulnerable walls.

The result was star shaped fortifications with tier upon tier of hornworks and bastions, of which Bourtange illustrated to the right is an excellent example. There are also extensive fortifications from this era in the Nordic states and in Britain, the fortifications of Berwick-upon-Tweed and the harbour archipelago of Suomenlinna at Helsinki being fine examples.

19th century[link]

The arrival of explosive shells in the 19th century led to yet another stage in the evolution of fortification. Star forts of the cannon era did not fare well against the effects of high explosive and the intricate arrangements of bastions, flanking batteries and the carefully constructed lines of fire for the defending cannon could be rapidly disrupted by explosive shells.

Worse, the large open ditches surrounding forts of this type were an integral part of the defensive scheme, as was the covered way at the edge of the counter scarp. The ditch was extremely vulnerable to bombardment with explosive shells.

In response, military engineers evolved the polygonal style of fortification. The ditch became deep and vertically sided, cut directly into the native rock or soil, laid out as a series of straight lines creating the central fortified area that gives this style of fortification its name.

Wide enough to be an impassable barrier for attacking troops, but narrow enough to be a difficult target for enemy shellfire, the ditch was swept by fire from defensive blockhouses set in the ditch as well as firing positions cut into the outer face of the ditch itself.

The profile of the fort became very low indeed, surrounded outside the ditch by a gently sloping open area so as to eliminate possible cover for enemy forces, while the fort itself provided a minimal target for enemy fire. The entrypoint became a sunken gatehouse in the inner face of the ditch, reached by a curving ramp that gave access to the gate via a rolling bridge that could be withdrawn into the gatehouse.

Traditional fortification however continued to be applied by European armies engaged in warfare in colonies established in Africa against lightly armed attackers from amongst the indigenous population. A relatively small number of defenders in a fort impervious to iron-age weaponry could hold out against high odds, the only constraint being the supply of ammunition.

Much of the fort moved underground, with deep passages and tunnels to connect the blockhouses and firing points in the ditch to the fort proper, with magazines and machine rooms deep under the surface.

The guns however, were often mounted in open emplacements and protected only by a parapet - both in order to keep a lower profile and also because experience with guns in closed casemates had seen them put out of action by rubble as their own casemates were collapsed around them.

20th and 21st centuries[link]

Steel-and-concrete fortifications were common during the 19th and early 20th centuries. However the advances in modern warfare since World War I have made large-scale fortifications obsolete in most situations. Only underground bunkers are still able to provide some protection in modern wars. Many historical fortifications were demolished during the modern age, but a considerable number survive as popular tourist destinations and prominent local landmarks today.

Dragon's teeth—tank traps in the Eifel

The downfall of permanent fortifications had two causes:

• The ever escalating power, speed, and reach of artillery and air power meant that almost any target that could be located could be destroyed, if sufficient force were massed against it. As such, the more resources a defender devoted to reinforcing a fortification, the more combat power that fortification justified being devoted to destroying it, if the fortification's destruction was demanded by an attacker's strategy. From World War II, bunker busters were used against fortifications. By 1950, nuclear weapons were capable of destroying entire cities, and produced dangerous radiation. This led to the creation of civilian nuclear air raid shelters.
• The second weakness of permanent fortification was its very permanency. Because of this it was often easier to go around a fortification and, with the rise of mobile warfare in the beginning of World War II, this became a viable offensive choice. When a defensive line was too extensive to be entirely bypassed, massive offensive might could be massed against one part of the line allowing a breakthrough, after which the rest of the line could be bypassed. Such was the fate of the many defensive lines built before and during World War II, such as the Siegfried Line, the Stalin Line and the Atlantic Wall. Note that this was not the case of the Maginot Line, designed to force the Germans to pass through Belgium and that has fully achieved its political and strategic role^[8].

Bunkers in Albania^[9]

Instead field fortification rose to dominate defensive action. Unlike the trench warfare which dominated World War I, these defences were more temporary in nature. This was an advantage because since it was less extensive it formed a less obvious target for enemy force to be directed against.

If sufficient power were massed against one point to penetrate it, the forces based there could be withdrawn and the line could be re-established relatively quickly. Instead of a supposedly impenetrable defensive line, such fortifications emphasized defence in depth, so that as defenders were forced to pull back or were overrun, the lines of defenders behind them could take over the defence.

Because the mobile offensives practised by both sides usually focused on avoiding the strongest points of a defensive line, these defences were usually relatively thin and spread along the length of a line. The defence was usually not equally strong throughout however.

The strength of the defensive line in an area varied according to how rapidly an attacking force could progress in the terrain that was being defended—both the terrain the defensive line was built on and the ground behind it that an attacker might hope to break out into. This was both for reasons of the strategic value of the ground, and its defensive value.

This was possible because while offensive tactics were focused on mobility, so were defensive tactics. The dug in defences consisted primarily of infantry and antitank guns. Defending tanks and tank destroyers would be concentrated in mobile "Fire Brigades" behind the defensive line. If a major offensive was launched against a point in the line, mobile reinforcements would be sent to reinforce that part of the line that was in danger of failing.

Thus the defensive line could be relatively thin because the bulk of the fighting power of the defenders was not concentrated in the line itself but rather in the mobile reserves. A notable exception to this rule was seen in the defensive lines at the Battle of Kursk during World War II, where German forces deliberately attacked into the strongest part of the Soviet defences seeking to crush them utterly.

The terrain that was being defended was of primary importance because open terrain that tanks could move over quickly made possible rapid advances into the defenders' rear areas that were very dangerous to the defenders. Thus such terrain had to be defended at all cost.

In addition, since in theory the defensive line only had to hold out long enough for mobile reserves to reinforce it, terrain that did not permit rapid advance could be held more weakly because the enemy's advance into it would be slower, giving the defenders more time to reinforce that point in the line. For example, the battle of the Hurtgen Forest in Germany during the closing stages of World War II is an excellent example of how impassable terrain could be used to the defenders' advantage.

After World War II, ICBMs capable of reaching much of the way around the world were developed, and so speed became an essential characteristic of the strongest militaries and defenses. Missile silos were developed, so missiles could be fired from the middle of a country and hit cities and targets in another country, and airplanes (and air carriers) became major defenses and offensive weapons (leading to an expansion of the use of airports and airstrips as fortifications). Mobile defenses could be had underwater, too, in the form of nuclear submarines capable of firing missiles. Some bunkers in the mid to late 20th century came to be buried deep inside mountains and prominent rocks, such as Gibraltar and Cheyenne Mountain. On the ground itself, minefields have been used as hidden defences in modern warfare, often remaining long after the wars that have produced them have ended.

Demilitarized zones along borders are arguably another type of fortification, although a passive kind, providing a buffer between potentially hostile militaries.

Forts[link]

Engineers fill Hesco bastions at a forward operating base in Afghanistan.

Forts in modern usage often refer to space set aside by governments for a permanent military facility; these often do not have any actual fortifications, and can have specializations (military barracks, administration, medical facilities, or intelligence). In the United States usage, forts specifically refer to Army fortifications; Marine Corps fortifications are referred to as camps.^{[citation needed]}

However there are some modern fortifications that are referred to as forts. These are typically small semi permanent fortifications. In urban combat they are built by upgrading existing structures such as houses or public buildings. In field warfare they are often log, sandbag or gabion type construction.

Such forts are typically only used in low level conflict, e.g., counterinsurgency conflicts or very low level conventional conflicts, e.g., the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation saw the use of log forts for use by forward platoons and companies. The reason for this is that static above ground forts can not survive modern direct or indirect fire weapons larger than mortars, RPGs and small arms.

North America[link]

Fort Snelling on the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, 1844. Image painted by John Caspar Wild (1804-1846).

In British North America, and subsequently in the frontiers of the United States, prior to the 20th century the term fort was increasingly used for any military base of operations regardless of how fortified it was. Military forts in the American Old West during the Indian Wars were often lightly fortified enclosures with log or adobe walls. In many areas the term fort was used to refer to any European or U.S. outpost, military, para-military, or civilian, that was located in an undeveloped region. Many of these outposts were simply trading posts or a combination of a trading post and an Army post.

Some famous U.S. military forts included Fort Laramie and Fort Bridger on the Emigrant Trail and Bent's Fort on the Arkansas River.

Prisons and others[link]

Fortifications designed to keep the inhabitants of a facility in rather than out can also be found, in prisons, concentration camps, and other such facilities, with supermaxes having some of the strongest of those. Those are covered in other articles, as most prisons and concentration camps are not primarily military forts (although forts, camps, and garrison towns have been used as prisons and/or concentration camps; see Theresienstadt, Guantanamo Bay, and the Tower of London for examples).

See also[link]

Captain John Smith's 1624 map of Bermuda, showing important sites, including the Castle Islands Fortifications.

The Kumbhalgarh Fort in Rajasthan, India. For more than 3 centuries, the Fort remained impregnable.

Klis Fortress in Croatia, built into the south face of a rocky mass. Lost and re-conquered several times over more than two thousand years.

• Border fence
• Castra
• Citadel
• Coastal fortification
• Defensive wall
• Hesco bastion
• List of fortifications
• List of forts
• Military camp

Fort components

• Abatis
• Banquette
• Barbed wire, Razor wire, Wire entanglement, and Wire obstacle
• Bartizan
• Bastion
• Berm
• Caponier
• Casemate
• Curtain
• Czech hedgehog
• Defensive fighting position (aka a "foxhole")
• Ditch
• Embrasure
• Glacis
• Gun turret
• Keep
• Palisade
• Parapet
• Pillbox
• Postern
• Ravelin
• Revetment
• Sandbag
• Scarp and Counterscarp
• Turret

Types of forts and fortification

• Bastion fortress
• Blanket fort
• Blockhouse
• Bunker
• Castle
• City wall
• Chinese city wall
• Compound
• Diaolou
• Fire support base
• Flak tower
• Grad, a Slavic wooden fortified settlement
• Hill fort
• Land battery
• Martello tower
• Medieval fortification
• Missile silo
• Pā a 19th-century Māori fortification
• Peel tower
• Polygonal fort
• Promontory fort
• Redoubt
• Stockade
• Star fort

Fortification and siege warfare

• Military engineer
• Military history
• Medieval warfare
• Siege
• Siege engine

Famous experts

• Henri Alexis Brialmont
• César Cui
• Diades of Pella
• Mozi
• James of St. George
• Bernard de Gomme
• Fritz Todt
• Menno van Coehoorn
• Vauban

Gallery[link]

References[link]

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. 

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Fortification

Look up fortification in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Fortress Study Group
• Militaryarchitecture.com
• Study of Fortifications in Slovenia
• Fortifications in Slovenia

Part of the Politics series on
Monarchism
Varieties Absolute Constitutional Diarchy Elective Non-Sovereign Regency
Central concepts Monarch Monarchy Divine right of kings Mandate of Heaven
History Magna Carta Foundation of the Ottoman Empire Glorious Revolution French Revolution Trienio Liberal First French Empire Second French Empire Fall of Qing Dynasty Russian Revolution of 1917 Siamese Revolution of 1932 Second Spanish Civil War Birth of the Italian Republic Iranian Revolution Modern Cambodia Nepalese Civil War
Related topics Aristocracy Autocracy Conservatism Thomas Hobbes Oligarchy Right-wing politics Royalist Toryism
Politics portal
v t e

Royal, noble and chivalric ranks

Emperor & Empress consort Empress & Emperor consort

Empress dowager or Empress mother

King & Queen consort or Princess consort Queen & King consort or Prince consort

Queen dowager or Queen mother Princess dowager or Princess mother

Grand Duke & Grand Duchess Grand Prince & Grand Princess

Viceroy & Vicereine

Archduke & Archduchess Infante & Infanta

Duke & Duchess Prince & Princess

Marquess & Marchioness Marquis & Marquise Margrave & Margravine

Count & Countess Earl & Countess

Viscount & Viscountess

Baron & Baroness Freiherr & Freifrau

Baronet & Baronetess Hereditary Knight, Ritter

Knight & Dame

Nobile, Edler von

This box: view talk edit

A monarch is the person who leads a monarchy. This is a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled or controlled by an individual who typically inherits the throne by birth and rules for life or until abdication. Monarchs may be autocrats (absolute monarchy) or ceremonial heads of state who exercise little or no power or only reserve power, with actual authority vested in a parliament or other body (constitutional monarchy).

Etymology[link]

The word monarch is derived from the Greek μονάρχης (from μόνος, "one/singular," and ἄρχων, "leader/ruler/chief") through the Latin: monarcha (mono: "one" + arch "chief") which referred to a single, at least nominally, absolute ruler. In current usage the word monarchy generally refers to a traditional system of hereditary rule, as elective monarchies are rare in the modern period (though they do still exist in Vatican City, Andorra and Malaysia).

Characteristics[link]

Most states have at most one monarch at any given time, although a regent may rule when the monarch is a minor, not present, or otherwise incapable of ruling. Two monarchs have ruled simultaneously in some countries, as in the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta or the joint sovereignty of spouses or relatives (e.g. William and Mary of Kingdom of England and Scotland, Peter and Ivan of Russia, Charles and Joanna of Castile, etc.).

Monarchs have various titles — king or queen, prince or princess (e.g. Sovereign Prince of Monaco), Malik or Malikah (e.g. Maliks of Middle eastern Mamlakahs), emperor or empress (e.g. Emperor of Japan, Emperor of India), Shah of Iran, archduke, duke or grand duke (e.g. Grand Duke of Luxembourg). Prince is sometimes used as a generic term to describe any monarch regardless of title, especially in older texts.

Many monarchs are distinguished by titles and styles. They often take part in certain ceremonies, such as a coronation.

Monarchy is associated with political or sociocultural in nature hereditary rule; most monarchs, both historically and in the modern day, have been born and brought up within a royal family (over a period of time called a dynasty) and trained for future duties. Different systems of succession have been used, such as proximity of blood, primogeniture, and agnatic seniority (Salic law). While traditionally most monarchs have been male, female monarchs have also ruled in history; the term queen regnant refers to a ruling monarch, as distinct from a queen consort, the wife of a reigning king.

Some monarchies are non-hereditary. In an elective monarchy, the monarch is elected but otherwise serves as any other monarch. Historical examples of elective monarchy include the Holy Roman Emperors (chosen by prince-electors but often coming from the same dynasty) and the free election of kings of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Modern examples include the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia and the pope of the Roman Catholic Church, who serves as Sovereign of the Vatican City State and is elected to a life term by the College of Cardinals.

Monarchies have existed throughout the world, although in recent centuries many states have abolished the monarchy and become republics. Advocacy of republics is called republicanism, while advocacy of monarchies is called monarchism. The principal advantage of hereditary monarchy is the immediate continuity of leadership, with a usually short interregnum (as illustrated in the classic phrase "The [old] King is dead. Long live the [new] King!"). However, this only applies in the case of autocratic rule. In cases where the monarch serves mostly as a ceremonial figure (e.g. most modern constitutional monarchies) real leadership does not depend on the monarch.

The nine European Monarchs who attended the funeral of King Edward VII of Britain, photographed at Windsor Castle on 20 May 1910. Standing, from left to right: King Haakon VII of Norway, King Ferdinand of Bulgaria, King Manuel II of Portugal, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King George I of Greece and King Albert I of Belgium. Seated, from left to right: King Alfonso XIII of Spain, King George V of Britain and King Frederick VIII of Denmark.

Postcard from 1908 showing nineteen of the world's reigning monarchs: (left to right) King Rama V/Chulalongkorn of Siam, King George I of Greece, King Peter I of Serbia, King Carol I of Romania, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary, King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, Sultan Abdul Hamid II of the Ottoman Empire, King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, Emperor Nicholas II of the Russia, King Edward VII of Britain, Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany, King Gustav V of Sweden, King Haakon VII of Norway, King Frederick VIII of Denmark, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Emperor Guangxu of China, Emperor Meiji of Japan, King Manuel II of Portugal and King Alfonso XIII of Spain.

A form of government may in fact be hereditary without being considered monarchy, such as family dictatorship or political families present in some nominally democratic countries.

Classification[link]

A particular case is the French co-prince of Andorra, a position held by the elected President of France. Nonetheless, he is still generally considered a monarch because of the traditional use of a monarchical title (even though Andorra is, strictly speaking, a diarchy.) Similarly, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia is considered a monarch despite only holding the office for five years at a time. On the other hand, several life-time dictators around the world have not been formally classified as monarchs, even if succeeded by their children, but that may be more to do with international political sensitivities than with semantics.

Succession[link]

Hereditary succession within one family has been most common. The usual hereditary succession is based on some cognatic principles and on seniority, though sometimes merit has played a part. Thus, the most common hereditary system in feudal Europe was based on cognatic primogeniture where a lord was succeeded by his eldest son or, if he had no son, by either his brother, his daughters or sons of daughters. The system of tanistry was semi-elective and gave weight also to merits and capability.

The Quasi-Salic succession provided firstly for male members of the family to succeed, and secondarily males descended from female lines. In most feudal fiefs, females (such as daughters and sisters) were allowed to succeed, should the male line fail, but usually the husband of the heiress became the real lord and most often also received the title, jure uxoris. Great Britain and Spain today continue this model of succession law, in the form of cognatic primogeniture. In more complex medieval cases, the sometimes conflicting principles of proximity and primogeniture battled, and outcomes were often idiosyncratic.

As the average life span among the nobility increased (thanks to lords limiting their personal participation in dangerous battles, and generally improved sustenance and living conditions among the wealthy), an eldest son was more likely to reach majority age before the death of his father, and primogeniture became increasingly favoured over proximity, tanistry, seniority and election.

Later, when lands were strictly divided among noble families and tended to remain fixed, agnatic primogeniture (practically the same as Salic Law) became more usual: the succession would go to the eldest son of the monarch, or, if the monarch had no sons, the throne would pass to the nearest male relative through the male line, to the total exclusion of females.

In some countries however, inheritance through the female line was never wholly abandoned, so that if the monarch had no sons, the throne would pass to the eldest daughter and to her posterity. (This, cognatic primogeniture, was the rule that let Elizabeth II become Queen.)

In 1980, Sweden became the first monarchy to declare equal primogeniture or full cognatic primogeniture, meaning that the eldest child of the monarch, whether female or male, ascends to the throne.^[1] Other kingdoms (Netherlands in 1983, Norway in 1990, Belgium in 1991 and Denmark in 2009) have since followed suit.

In some monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, succession to the throne usually first passes to the monarch's next eldest brother, and only after that to the monarch's children (agnatic seniority). In some other monarchies (e.g. Jordan), the monarch chooses who will be his successor, who need not necessarily be his eldest son.

Whatever the rules of succession, there have been many cases of a monarch being overthrown and replaced by a usurper who would then often install his own family as the ruling monarchy.

History[link]

Monarchs in Africa[link]

A series of Pharaohs ruled Ancient Egypt over the course of three millennia (circa 3150 BC to 31 BC) until it was conquered by the Roman Empire. In the same time period several kingdoms flourished in the nearby Nubia region, with at least one of them, that of the so-called A-Group culture, apparently influencing the customs of Egypt itself.

West Africa hosted the Kanem Empire (700 - 1376) and its successor, the Bornu principality which survives to the present day as a part of the Federation of Nigeria.

In East Africa, the Aksumite Empire and later the Ethiopian Empire (1270–1974) were ruled by a series of monarchs. Haile Selassie, the last Emperor of Ethiopia, was deposed in a communist coup.

Central and Southern Africa were largely isolated from other regions until the modern era, but they did later feature kingdoms like the Kingdom of Kongo (1400–1914).

As part of the Scramble for Africa, Europeans conquered, bought, or established African kingdoms and styled themselves as monarchs.

Currently the African nations of Morocco, Lesotho and Swaziland are sovereign monarchies under dynasties that are native to the continent. Places like St. Helena, Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands are ruled by the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the King of Spain, while so-called sub-national monarchies of varying sizes can be found all over the rest of the continent e.g. the Yoruba city-state of Akure in south-western Nigeria is something of an elective monarchy, with its reigning Oba having to be chosen by an electoral college of nobles from amongst a finite collection of royal princes and princesses of the realm.

Monarchs in Europe[link]

Queen of United Kingdom (as well as Canada, Australia, and other Commonwealth realms)

Prince was a common title within the Holy Roman Empire, along with a number of higher titles listed below. Such titles were granted by the Emperor, while the titulation of rulers of sovereign states was generally left to their own discretion, most often choosing King or Queen. Such titulations could cause diplomatic problems, and especially the elevation to Emperor or Empress was seen as an offensive action.

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries most small monarchies in Europe disappeared, merging to form larger entities, and so King is the most common title for male rulers and Queen has become the most common title today for female rulers.

As of 2010^[update] in Europe there are twelve monarchies: seven kingdoms, one grand duchy, one papacy, and two principalities, as well as the diarchy of Andorra.

Monarchs in Asia[link]

Japanese Emperor Hirohito, Crown Prince Akihito, Crown Princess Michiko and Empress Nagako, 1959

In China, before the abolition of the monarchy in 1912, the Emperor of China was traditionally regarded as the ruler of "All under heaven". "King" is the usual translation for the term wang 王, the sovereign before the Qin dynasty and during the Ten Kingdoms period. During the early Han dynasty, China had a number of small kingdoms, each about the size of a county and subordinate to the Empress or Emperor of China.

The Japanese monarchy is now the only monarchy to still use the title of Emperor. Between 1925 and 1979, Iran was ruled by an Emperor that used the title of "Shahanshah" (or "King of Kings" in Gelf). Thailand and Bhutan are like the UK in that they are constitutional monarchies ruled by a King. Saudi Arabia and many other Middle Eastern monarchies are ruled by a Malik and parts of the United Arab Emirates, such as Dubai, are still ruled by monarchs.

Oman is led by Monarch Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said. The Kingdom of Jordan is one of the Middle East's more modern monarchies is also ruled by a Malik. In Arab and arabized countries, Malik (absolute King) is absolute word to render a monarch and is superior to all other titles. Nepal abolished their monarchy in 2008. Sri Lanka had a complex system of monarchies from 543BC to 1815. Between 47BC-42BC Anula of Sri Lanka became the country's first female head of state as well as Asia's first head of state.^{[dubious – discuss]}

In Malaysia's constitutional monarchy, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (The Supreme Lord of the Federation) is de facto rotated every five years among the nine Rulers of the Malay states of Malaysia (those nine of the thirteen states of Malaysia that have hereditary royal rulers), elected by Majlis Raja-Raja (Conference of Rulers). Under Brunei Darussalam's 1959 constitution, His Majesty Paduka Seri Baginda, Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah is the head of state with full executive authority, including emergency powers, since 1962. The Prime Minister of Brunei is a title held by the Sultan of Brunei. As the prime minister, the Sultan presides over the cabinet.

Monarchs in the Americas[link]

The concept of monarchy existed in the Americas long before the arrival of European colonialists.^[2][3] When the Europeans arrived they referred to these tracts of land within territories of different aboriginal groups to be kingdoms, and the leaders of these groups were often referred to by the Europeans as Kings, particularly hereditary leaders.^[4]

Pre-colonial titles that were used included:

• Cacique – Aboriginal Hispaniola and Borinquen
• Tlatoani – Nahuas
• Ajaw – Maya
• Qhapaq Inka – Tawuantin Suyu (Inca Empire)
• Morubixaba – Tupi tribes
• Sha-quan – King of the world used in some America Indian tribes

The first local monarch to emerge in North America after colonization was Augustin I, who declared himself Emperor of Mexico in 1822. Mexico again had an emperor, Maximilian I from 1863 to 1867. In South America, Brazil had a Portuguese royal house ruling as emperor between 1822 and 1889, under Emperors Pedro I and Pedro II.

Monarchs in Tonga[link]

Tonga was ruled by a chief and the chief is in charge of one village. The cities were governed by the Prime Minister of Tonga. Tonga was falling apart because the chiefs would start war with other villages and Tonga would fall apart. Tonga did not know what to do and then the chiefs thought that a Monarch would bring balance to the Kingdom of Tonga and peace. The following day was the day that Tonga received a Monarch, so Tonga celebrated with games, dancing and singing.

Between 1931 and 1983 nine other previous British colonies attained independence as kingdoms, all, including Canada, in a personal union relationship under a shared monarch. Therefore, though today there are legally ten American monarchs, one person occupies each distinct position.

Titles and precedence[link]

The normal monarch title in Europe — i.e., the one used if the monarch has no higher title — is prince or princess, by convention. As an absolute ruler, a monarch can choose a title. However, titles are usually defined by tradition and diplomatic considerations.

Note that some of these titles have several meanings and do not necessarily designate a monarch. A Prince may be a person of royal blood (some languages uphold this distinction, see Fürst). A Duke may be a British peer. In Imperial Russia, a Grand Duke was a son or grandson of the Tsar or Tsarina. Holders of titles in these alternative meanings did not enjoy the same status as the monarchs of the same title.

Within the Holy Roman Empire, there were even more titles that were used occasionally for monarchs although they were normally noble; Margrave, Count Palatine, and Landgrave. A monarch with such a low title was still regarded as more important than a noble Duke.^{[citation needed]}

The table below lists titles in order of precedence. According to protocol any holder of a title of monarchy took precedence over all holders of a lower title. Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom was arguably the most powerful monarch of her time, but at banquets was seated below all the Emperors until she took the title of Empress of India.

The pope is the Bishop of Rome (a celibate office always forbidden to women), in English however, reports of female popes such as (Pope Joan) refer to them as pope and Popess is used, among other things, for the second trump in the Tarot deck; some European languages also have a feminine form of the word pope, such as the Italian papessa, the French papesse, and the German Päpstin.

Titles by region[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

When a difference exists below, male titles are placed to the left and female titles are placed to the right of the slash.

Current monarchs[link]

Use of titles by non-sovereigns[link]

It is not uncommon that people who are not generally seen as monarchs nevertheless use monarchical titles. There are at least five cases of this:

• Claiming an existing title, challenging the current holder. This has been very common historically. For centuries, the British monarch used, among his other titles, the title King of France, despite the fact that he had had no authority over French territory since the fifteenth century. Such as any one of the numerous antipopes who have claimed the Holy See.
• Retaining the title of an extinct monarchy. This can be coupled with a claim that the monarchy was in fact never, or should never have been, extinct. An example of the first case is the Prince of Seborga. Examples of the second case are several deposed monarchs or otherwise pretenders to thrones of abolished monarchies, e.g., Leka, Crown Prince of Albania who is styled by some as the "King of The Albanians." Retaining the title of an extinct monarchy can, however, be totally free of claims of sovereignty, for example it was customary of numerous European Monarchies to include "King of Jerusalem" in their full titles. When it comes to deposed monarchs, it is customary to continue the usage of their monarchical title (e.g., Constantine II, King of the Hellenes) as a courtesy title, not a constitutional office, for the duration of their lifetime. However the title then dies with them and cannot be used by anyone else unless the crown is restored constitutionally. Monarchs who have freely abdicated lose their right to use their former title. However where a monarch abdicated under duress (e.g., Michael I of Romania), it is customary to see the abdication as invalid and to treat them as deposed monarchs entitled to use their monarchical style for their lifetime.
• Inventing a new title. This is common by founders of micronations, and also may or may not come with a claim of sovereignty. When it does, it is disregarded by state leaders. A notable example is Paddy Roy Bates, styling himself the "Prince of Sealand," but not recognized as such by any national government, thus failing at least the constitutive condition for statehood (see Sealand for a fuller discussion of his claims). Another known example is that of Norton I, who invented the title "Emperor of the United States of America" and later declared himself "Protector of Mexico."
• Usage of a monarchical title by a fictional character. This is common in fairy tales and other works geared to children, as well as works of fantasy. Examples include Princess Leia and Princess Summerfall Winterspring.
• Honorific nicknames in popular music and other aspects of popular culture, such as "King of Rock and Roll".

See also[link]

• List of monarchs by country
• List of living former sovereign monarchs
• Archontology

References[link]

External links[link]

Look up monarch or kingship in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• A Glossary of European Noble, Princely, Royal and Imperial Titles
• Regnal Chronologies King lists worldwide
• Archontology
• African Kingdoms Imperial Throne Leadership and Enthronements
• Imperial House Foundation – Africa/USA/Europe – interview

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2012)

"The Man" is a slang phrase that may refer to the government or to some other authority in a position of power. In addition to this derogatory connotation, it may also serve as a term of respect and praise.

The phrase "the Man is keeping me down" is commonly used to describe oppression. The phrase "stick it to the Man" encourages resistance to authority, and essentially means "fight back" or "resist", either openly or via sabotage.^[1]

History[link]

The earliest recorded use^{[citation needed]} of the term "the Man" in the American sense dates back to a letter written by a young Alexander Hamilton in September 1772, when he was 15. In a letter to his father James Hamilton, published in the Royal Dutch-American Gazette, he described the response of the Dutch governor of St. Croix to a hurricane that raked that island on August 31, 1772. "Our General has issued several very salutary and humane regulations and both in his publick and private measures, has shewn himself the Man." ^{[2][dubious – discuss]} In the Southern U.S. states, the phrase came to be applied to any man or any group in a position of authority, or to authority in the abstract. From about the 1950s the phrase was also an underworld code word for police, the warden of a prison or other law enforcement or penal authorities.

It was also used as a term for a drug dealer in the 1950s and 1960s and can be seen in such media as Curtis Mayfield's "No Thing On Me", William Burroughs's novel Naked Lunch, and in the Velvet Underground song "I'm Waiting for the Man", in which Lou Reed sings about going to Uptown Manhattan, specifically Lexington Avenue and 125th Street, to buy heroin.

The use of this term was expanded to counterculture groups and their battles against authority, such as the Yippies, which, according to a May 19, 1969 article in U.S. News and World Report, had the "avowed aim ... to destroy 'The Man', their term for the present system of government". The term eventually found its way into humorous usage, such as in a December 1979 motorcycle ad from the magazine Easyriders which featured the tagline, "California residents: Add 6% sales tax for The Man."

In present day, the phrase has been popularized in commercials and cinema, featuring particularly prominently as a recurring motif in the 2003 film School of Rock.^[3][4][5][6]

Use as praise[link]

The term has also been used as an approbation or form of praise. This may refer to the recipient's status as the leader or authority within a particular context, or it might be assumed to be a shortened form of a phrase like "He is the man (who is in charge)." One example of this usage dates to 1879 when Otto von Bismarck commented, referring to Benjamin Disraeli's pre-eminent position at the Congress of Berlin, "The old Jew, he is the man."^{[7][dubious – discuss]}

In more modern usage, it can be a superlative compliment ("you da man!") indicating that the subject is currently standing out amongst his peers even though they have no special designation or rank, such as a basketball player who is performing better than the other players on the court. It can also be used as a genuine compliment with an implied, slightly exaggerated or sarcastic tone, usually indicating that the person has indeed impressed the speaker but by doing something relatively trivial.

See also[link]

• Absentee landlord
• Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)
• New World Order (conspiracy theory)
• Ruling class
• The Establishment
• Power elite
• Corrections officer
• YTMND

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Lighter, J.E. (Ed.). (1997). Random House Dictionary of American Slang. New York: Random House.