- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joel Berger is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Great Caesar's Ghost
General, dictator, martyr, god. He's in our political DNA.
J.C.: A million victims.
- Caesar: The Life of a Colossus
- Yale University Press (2006)
After more than 2000 years, he haunts us still.
Caius Julius Caesar, the epileptic son of an undistinguished patrician family, shook Europe to its core and shaped humanity’s future for at least two millennia.
Great generals, including Napoleon, have studied his campaigns like awestruck schoolboys. He was a brilliant writer who -- while fighting the Gauls -- dashed off a book on writing clear, plain Latin.
He understood male psychology so well that his legionaries begged to risk their lives for him. No later womanizer, whether Casanova or John F. Kennedy, could compare with his adulterous conquests. He could be brutal in the service of his policies, but also conciliatory. Julius Caesar saved Rome from itself, and paid with his life for it.
Adrian Goldsworthy’s Caesar: The Life of a Colossus is a superb modern biography of a man most us know only as a Shakespearean villain/victim. This is a shame, because Caesar’s life is remarkably well documented.
We don’t have much of his own writing apart from the Commentaries (I wish his book on clear style had survived). But Rome’s chattering classes wrote endlessly about him, and historians like Plutarch drew on sources now lost. Goldsworthy draws on all these sources to create both a vivid biography and a study of a society reborn from its own collapse.
Justice to the biggest briber
We now sentimentalize the Republic, but in Goldsworthy’s book it looks more like a gigantic racket. Rome was a rigidly stratified society in which everyone tried to link to someone richer and more powerful. The Romans passed lots of laws, but justice went to the biggest briber. For the aristocrats at the top, politics was both a game and the only way to secure a safe position for oneself and one’s family.
It was a brutal competition, often mixed with class warfare. The Republic had been convulsed for decades by civil strife and violent conspiracies: the whole racket had nearly collapsed when a gladiator named Spartacus led a revolt that turned into the Slave War. Each upheaval seemed to require yet another great leader and yet more erosion of the corrupt and incompetent Senate.
Caesar came from a little-known aristocratic family, but he followed a traditional career path: watch your father in his senatorial duties, make connections, do a little military service, make connections, bribe your way to various elected positions, make connections.
Like other ambitious young Romans, Caesar ran up huge debts. But he was able to spend other people’s money to become a consul -- one of the two men annually elected to run the country. Departing consuls would then be assigned a province of the growing empire. There, armed with imperium, the power of military command, they could rob the locals, pay off their debts, and return to Rome to continue the game.
A brilliant game-player
Caesar played the game brilliantly. Assigned to the provinces of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, he responded to Gaulish and German raids by raising new legions -- a kind of private army. He then launched a campaign that extended the Roman Empire all the way to the Bay of Biscay and the English Channel. (He even managed a couple of forays into Britain, which were great PR for him.)
In the process, Caesar killed or enslaved over a million people, Gauls and Germans who were no barbarians. They just didn’t have the disciplined military culture that the Romans had developed over the previous few centuries.
Having brought Gaul under Roman control, Caesar wanted to go home and become a consul again. Consuls were immune from prosecution, and he knew his enemies would haul him into court as soon as he paid off his armies and returned to the city.
But no man could be consul twice within ten years, so Caesar had to break the law: he crossed the Rubicon River with his legions, bringing them into the Roman heartland, and that triggered a civil war. Having fought Gauls, Germans, and Britons, Caesar now fought Romans in Greece, Spain, and North Africa.
For a modern comparison, imagine General Douglas MacArthur returning from Japan, overthrowing Truman, defeating Eisenhower and Patton in a worldwide conflict, and then becoming America’s President for Life.
Now imagine MacArthur doing a very good job of running the U.S.: providing benefits for World War II veterans, promoting civil rights for blacks, and making the country stable and secure while helping the supporters of Ike and Patton. How many Americans would have objected to MacArthur’s demolition of Congress and the Supreme Court?
Not many, and not many Romans objected to Caesar’s disregard for Roman law and tradition. Even his enemies admitted that Caesar was doing the right things -- but in the wrong way. He might decline the “kingly crown” that Mark Antony offered him, but Julius Caesar had made himself a monarch.
Killing the saviour
A few conspirators decided to restore the Republic by killing its saviour. With Caesar gone, they thought that the Senate would regain its power and the old aristocratic game of connections and warfare would continue.
Goldsworthy’s description of the assassination and its aftermath is spellbinding and surprising. We expect assassins to be suicidal fanatics, not senior politicians and friends of the victim. So it’s startling to see that Rome did not at once clap Brutus, Cassius and the other conspirators into jail. Instead, the people listened to the assassins’ case, chose sides, and embarked on yet another civil war.
Octavian, Caesar’s nephew and adopted son, was a far less forgiving leader. He massacred the conspirators’ supporters, camouflaged his monarchical role, and as Augustus Caesar founded a dynasty that ruled Rome for centuries.
Carrying Caesar’s DNA
Ever since, governments around the world have carried the political DNA of Julius Caesar and his nephew.
Even after the empire’s fall, its successors wrapped themselves in its raiment: the Germans called their monarch the kaiser, and the Russians lived under a tsar. Ambitious nobodies like Napoleone Buonaparte studied Caesar’s career to follow his trajectory without making his mistakes.
Caesar’s lesson has never been to avoid stealing your country. His lesson has been to steal your country more carefully than he did, more carefully than Napoleon and Mussolini and Nixon did. But he framed political thought for two thousand years. Whether we approve or not, we still think and act in terms of republic and empire, warlords and dynasties.
Caius Julius Caesar was as close to a superman as humanity has ever produced. But even he could not transcend his own political culture. He could only push it to its logical extremes, without ever asking: Does it have to be this way? Do we have to kill a million people and destroy their societies just so we can go on playing this stupid game in Rome?
Only those who ask such questions will escape the fate of Julius Caesar and his descendants.



6
Login or register to post comments
Fiat lux
4 years ago
This is basically the
This is basically the history not only of Rome but of all empires. They fly high with the brutal oppression and enslavement of their own and other peoples, then burn out.
The purpose of all empires and dictators is also always the same :now called "wealth creation", in reality legalized theft and murder through the confiscation of the properties and lives of others.
The flight path is always the same and so is the ending. Empires are not knocked over by outsiders, but self destruct, but in the meantime cause incredible damage to the ecology and humanity, now endangering the survival of the Earth.
In the past empire building was based on religious theories, the divine order empowering aristocracies to steal and murder, now it is sanctified by ideology based economic theories, taught in universities as sciences.
Only the names and the colour of the flags has changed as we walk down the path of self destruction, toward a world controlled by the same predators in all ages, whether we call them Julius, or Alexander, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao, or Rockefeller, or Rothschild and their cookie cutter political pimps like Bush, or Harper, or Campbell.
Watch for the institution of microchip enhanced passports, drivers licences, followed by the compulsory implants into babies. No chips, no jobs, no survival.
This will be called "World government". Just another form of dictatorial enslavement already instituted and growing in the EU.
Ed Deak.
anarcho
4 years ago
Rome is the model
I think Rome set the model for genocidal destruction of tribal peoples. They attacked the Gallic tribes, massacring or enslaving them, destroying their towns and crops. Tribe was also set against tribe, in a divide and conquer pattern.
Dungeness_Crab
4 years ago
Already instituted?
bold mine
This is news to me. Any input you could impart would be appreciated, Ed. FTR, I have been consistently impressed by your writings on this site.
thanks in advance,
Skookum1
4 years ago
Roman vs other genocidal empires
Sorry, anarcho, the Romans may have organized the game somewhat more bureaucratically and all, but it was types like the Assyrians, who roasted Sumeria and Babylonia, and the Hyksos in Egypt, and the Persian Great King Ochus who opened the floodgates of mass slaughter. And it's not as if the Greeks hadn't (to each other) during the Archaic and Classical periods, as well as the Hellenistic.
Speaking of which, my original reason for signing in here was to comment on Kilian's observations about leaders ever since studying and modelling themselves on Caesar, and it's more than true enough, and not just because the titles Kaiser and Tsar are the respective Russian and German forms of the same word...and note it's only a title. "Caesar" is a name that's more like an abstraction, as with "the President" or "the Pontiff". It properly refers not to only one of its titleholders, as it has come to, but to all of them. "Caesar went to Gaul" in absolute terms could mean Marcus Aurelius or Romulus Augustulus as well as Gaius Julius (or is that Julius Gaius? Marcus Gaius Julius...?? I never get it straight...).
That digression aside (among so many potentials), to me the paradigm of military and political leadership, of the "your men will die for you" and "you're a deity or the next best thing to it" was Alexander the Great and the cult that grew up around him, right down to the short-man-syndrome thing; indeed, a cult/following that included Julius Caesar and whose own goals cannot help but have been shaped by the Alexandrian inheritance and the example of Alexander. Alexander is the paradigm, Julius only one of the earlier "outstanding copies". Not just a military leader like, say, Xerxes or Ramses, but a personal and social/civil/moral force (if you could consider Julius to have been moral, which I don't).
But back to the genocide thing...I think in the same era you'll find the first Qin Emperor's slaughter of widespread chunks of the Chinese population, along with the eradication of the records (and ultimately even the languages) of some of those people, to have had far more lasting effects than Roman genocidal policies. The Romans, ultimately, were swamped by the populations that had sought to slaughter (Germans and Celts...). Such was not the case on the farther side of the Gobi. I'm sure there are perhaps similar examples to be found in the subcontinent and Southeast Asia. Genocide was not a Roman invention.
anarcho
4 years ago
Right, Skookum1
Skookum1, You are right of course, imperialism and genocide were not invented by the Romans. What I was implying and should have stated, is that they set the pattern for Western European genocidal imperialism. All subsequent European empires model themselves upon Rome, either considering themselves its heirs or emulating its practices.
Skookum1
4 years ago
Well.....
No, still, the Romans were only copying the Greeks and Persians and others, even in the very formation of their state; the template is Pericles, Alexander and his generals, and Darius and his heirs; Rome was their imitator, and of course ultimately main rival (and of the Greeks and Hellenistic kingdoms, conqueror). The model for western regimes, perhaps, Rome provided but it didn't particularly last well or prove viable, which is why the integration of the clerical bureaucracy as an instrument of governance in the wake of the Conversion (indeed it was the reason for the Conversion); Rome's own model didn't last; if anything the despotical Emperors (Caligula, Heliogabulus et al) were decried for acting with the behaviour of an Eastern god-king, and NOT with Roman values, much as Alexander's personal style was raked by some of his generals for becoming too Persianized.
I guess I should also pause to ask you to distinguish between cultural genocide - the Latinization of the Gauls and Goths - and actual "ethnic cleansing" (something the Greeks were far better at, historically...). The Romans didn't wipe out the Etruscans or Sabines, they absorbed them (well, in the case of the Sabines they impregnated them...).
Worth noting that the first contacts with Chinese embassades in Central Asia had heard of Julius Caesar, but not Alexander...but news travelled faster (and farther) in 50 BC than in 320 BC...