Julius Caesar
Philip Freeman
Simon and Schuster Paperbacks. First published 2008.
A one-line summing-up of Caesar, quoting Alexander Hamilton (one of signers of the American Declaration of Independence) occurs right at the end of the book - 'The greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar'. Freeman himself does not appear to subscribe to this extreme view. This biography is fairly balanced. It is not a very detailed, or one with much depth. Freeman appears to have put together various classical accounts of the exploits of Caesar, and does not spend time on any analyses, unlike, for example, the biography of Napoleon that I described earlier in this Blog.
Caesar was born to an aristocratic family fallen on bad times. By reason of his family background he had access to all the politically important men and women of Rome of that period, but without money, that family background may have obtained him a sinecure, but nothing like the fame that was eventually to be his. This he got by his own merits and deeds. Almost as soon as he entered public life, he opposed the then dictator Sulla on a personal matter (he was asked to divorce his wife - he refused), and had to flee to the hills. He was then forgiven by Sulla, and went to serve in Asia Minor, where he won some notable, but minor, victories. Upon the death of Sulla, he returned to Rome and started rising in the political ranks. On one of his trips to the Greek islands, he was kidnapped by pirates and held to ransom, but he was cleverly able to turn the tables, and ended up capturing and crucifying the pirates. He was appointed military tribune, a kind of General/Defense Secretary, and during this time helped crush the slave rebellion lead by Spartacus. He was constantly rising in the political ranks, always espousing what would now be called 'the liberal' or populist cause, positioning himself against the 'optimates', a conservative grouping. He played major roles in some conspiracies. He traveled widely making friends among the folk of various regions of Italy, especially in the north, and thus lay the foundation for recruiting future armies. Along with Pompey and Crassus, he served as part of the triumvirate that ruled Rome for some time. He helped quell rebellions in Roman territories in Spain. He finally went on his most famous and most successful expedition to Gaul, roughly modern-day France. There he used the disciplined power of the Roman army, to defeat much larger but undisciplined armies of the Gaulish tribes, and brought all of Gaul under Roman rule. His tactic always was to do the unexpected thing, rapidly marching his army long distances, and suddenly appearing where he was not expected, quickly building bridges and fords over 'unpassable' rivers, using superior battlefield technology like catapults and siege machines, and always leading from the front and motivating his men to superhuman deeds. [It is easy to suspect Freeman, and perhaps his sources, of great exaggeration in the odds faced by Caesar. The way it is told here, Caesar almost always won his victories with five or ten thousand men against armies with twice or three times that number. This is stated to be so even when he defeated the Roman armies of Pompey with much smaller numbers.] These methods enabled him to even cross the English channel and establish the first Roman colonies in Britain, short-lived though they were. He then defeated a very widespread and potentially dangerous uprising in Gaul, led by Vercingetorix. He was by now such a successful General, that his return to Rome was feared by the senators. Nevertheless, he did return, with his army, 'crossing the Rubicon', a river in the north of Italy, and thus announcing that he was his own man with his own army, and not just a General under the control of the Roman senators. All this while he was also making intricate political maneuvers, trying to ensure control over the Senate. He frequently appealed directly to the people, promising them free food, land and so on. These acts eventually plunged Rome into civil war, with Caesar pitted against his former partner in the triumvirate, Pompey, who was supported by the Roman establishment. Again Caesar was a better general, even though he was now fighting another well-trained Roman army. Eventually he pushed Pompey to Egypt and followed him there. Pompey was killed, and Caesar turned his attention to the conquest of the Egyptian kingdom of Cleopatra. He loved her and wedded her, but still had to fight her brother Ptolemy, who was co-regent. He defeated him, and returned to Rome, via Palestine and the Balkans, conquering all along the way. The rest of the biography is familiar from Shakespeare's play, and the Hollywood movie 'Cleopatra'. He returns to a great triumph, is offered the crown and title of 'Emperor', which he turns down, but republicans, notably his close friend and protege Brutus, who fear his power, assassinate him on the ides of March.
Do these deeds, great though they were, suffice to characterize Caesar as the greatest man who ever lived. Even if we restrict ourselves to conquerors, and only those before Hamilton's time, several others come to mind - Alexander, Chandragupta Maurya, Genghis Khan, some of the Chinese emperors... One may say that Caesar was not a selfish conqueror in the same mold as the above, but more a general of a Republic. But that was apparently only a veneer. And though Freeman says he was generous and forgiving, he also gives enough instances of his brutality and his genocidal propensities. Of course, if you think about all people, and not just conquerors, there are too many names that could one could claim as the greatest - Jesus Christ being among the topmost of them. Caesar probably helped spread Roman civilization and culture through many parts of the world, but equally he probably destroyed many, many local cultures. But still and all, Caesar was probably the greatest Roman leader, and I can understand why Hamilton and even contemporary American politicians and statesmen could admire him, especially when they might wish their country to emulate Rome, at least in the way it behaves towards the rest of the world.
Finally, the description of Caesar's exploits in Gaul, and mention of Vercingetorix, brought to my mind the comically wishful treatment of the same events in the 'Asterix' comics!
No comments:
Post a Comment