Emanuele Pugliese

Emanuele Pugliese, a general commanding the Rome division, appears in the account of the October 1922 crisis as a military commander prepared to defend the capital but left waiting for political authorization. His role is defined by the collision between an available military force and a government slow to put that force into action: he had sought written orders for days, blamed the political class when the Fascist takeover of prefectures was raised, and commanded a substantial defensive force when the state of siege was finally proclaimed.

Command and the crisis of authority

Pugliese is identified as commander of the Rome division and as a general who had prepared the capital’s defense well before the decisive night. For two days he had been asking for written orders to implement that defense. The account therefore distinguishes readiness from authority: preparations existed, but he required formal instructions from the civilian government before acting. His presence exposes a central weakness of the crisis. The question was not simply whether Rome had a force capable of defending it, but whether political leaders would authorize that force in time.

The narrative places him in a meeting at the Ministry of Defence at 2:00 a.m. Interior Minister Taddei expresses sorrowful surprise that the armed forces had failed to prevent Fascists from taking numerous prefectures. Pugliese responds with outrage, assigning responsibility to the inaction of the political class. His anger is directed not at a lack of military preparation but at the delay that has kept those preparations from becoming orders. Taddei assures him that written instructions will now be issued, an assurance that answers Pugliese’s demand only after the crisis has advanced.

Orders and the defense of Rome

After the meeting, Luigi Facta goes to see the king. He then says that he must return to the Viminale to prepare a state of siege for the king to sign. The government’s proposed response is an exceptional legal measure that would suspend constitutional guarantees and transfer powers to the military authorities. Its significance for Pugliese is immediate: the general’s ability to carry out the defense depends on a decision made at the highest political level, not merely on the force already assembled in Rome.

The orders arrive in stages. Shortly after six in the morning, Facta sends Pugliese the written instructions for Rome’s defense that the general has been awaiting. Half an hour later, prefects receive a telegram ordering the arrest of those responsible for the sedition. At 7:50 a.m., a telegram notifying military authorities that the state of siege has begun is drafted; at 8:30, its proclamation is posted in the streets of Rome. This sequence gives Pugliese’s earlier complaint its practical measure: military command receives formal authorization only as the government works through a narrow and rapidly unfolding window.

The account also records an order of the day from Pugliese to the officers and soldiers of Rome’s garrison, dated at dawn on October 22. Its existence establishes that he addressed the garrison before the climactic events of October 28. The surviving passage identifies its audience, author, and date but does not supply its text, so its precise instructions cannot be reconstructed here. Separately, a proclamation addressed to prefects and military commanders on October 28 invokes Rome’s defense and the ideal of freedom; that statement belongs to the government’s public appeal, not to Pugliese’s order.

The forces under his command

At the moment the operation is to begin, the division assigned to defend the capital under Pugliese numbers 28,000. The total includes soldiers, Carabinieri, finance guards, and royal guards, supported by 60 machine guns, 26 cannons, and 15 armored cars. These figures make the defense more than a verbal threat: Rome possesses a concentrated body of personnel and equipment, organized under a named commander.

The comparison with the Fascist columns sharpens the contrast. The three columns that have reached their concentration areas number perhaps 10,000 men. They are on foot, hungry, thirsty, wet from the rain, and poorly armed; many have no weapons, while some who carry military rifles lack cartridges. Because Rome’s command has disrupted rail lines at Orte and Civitavecchia, the columns must continue on foot and scatter through woods and fields. Pugliese’s force is thus presented alongside an opposing force whose movement and equipment are compromised. The account does not, however, describe a battle between them or establish that Pugliese personally directed the disruption of the railway lines.

Narrative significance

Pugliese functions as the point where the state’s military capacity becomes visible—and where its political paralysis is exposed. His preparations, requests, and eventual receipt of orders trace the distance between possessing armed strength and authorizing its use. In the ministry meeting, his accusation makes that delay explicit; in the later figures, the organized defense of Rome stands against the smaller and inadequately equipped Fascist columns.

The narrative’s arrangement also keeps formal authority distinct from the spectacle of insurrection. Pugliese appears through command, orders, and the scale of the garrison, while the government’s proclamation speaks in the language of Rome, history, and freedom. These documents and forces occupy the same crisis but are not interchangeable: the proclamation is not his order, and the military figures do not by themselves prove how events would have unfolded had the orders arrived earlier. His significance lies in that unresolved tension. He embodies a prepared defense whose effectiveness depends on civilian decisions made under pressure.