Professor David Peimer
Julius Caesar: Conqueror of Gaul
Professor David Peimer - Julius Caesar: Conqueror and Cultural Commentator of Gaul
- Okay, thanks again for everything, Emily, and hi everybody, and hope everyone is well, everywhere, from a very sunny blue sky, Liverpool. So, I’m going to talk today on this remarkable individual from history that we all know pretty well, Julius Caesar, and focus specifically on a couple of aspects about his life, which I think are indicative of the kind of man that he was. Some ideas about leadership, in terms of distinctions of tyrant, benevolent dictator, a man on the edge of the Roman Republic, towards the Roman Empire. And, I think, perhaps most interestingly for me, is, are the cultural commentaries that Caesar wrote, or, we’re not sure, or he dictated, obviously, to a couple of his scribes. Nevertheless, they are his words, however they, you know, came down to us. And it’s through that, we get an idea of an individual who is not just a military leader, who’s not just a ruthless conqueror, which, obviously, he is, but what we call, I guess, today, the statesman, the individual who has a broader cultural and intellectual curiosity and interest in meeting peoples whom he may have heard stereotype, prejudiced perceptions about, but doesn’t actually know, and then writes his own thoughts and insights. And I think what’s fascinating is that, of course, Caesar is there to conquer, you know, for his own glory, to take back to Rome, and to become, ultimately, dictator, emperor of Rome.
But at the same time, I want to argue that he is profoundly intrigued, not only curious, I think, by how other peoples live, how other customs of religions, of marriage, of family, of structure of communities, technology, science, warfare, obviously. He researches and investigates everything. And I think, you know, one of the most recent, perhaps, of our last century, is perhaps Churchill, who comes close to this kind of a mind, this kind of a way of understanding the world, and his place as a leader in this world. Obviously, as I said, given that he is aiming to become the sole leader, emperor, dictator of Rome, or at least, you know, the most powerful person in the Roman Empire, and expand Rome. So, for me, these questions, and they come around the most fascinating reading of his commentaries, on the Gallic Wars, the wars with Gaul, the wars with the Britains, the wars with the Germans, and many others, you know, I’m going to use today’s terms, but the Spanish, the English, the French, you know, all in today’s terms, and the Germans, and many others, North Africa, Egypt, and so on. So, they come together with his understanding of culture. And when one reads the history of empires in the most, our times, of the last, you know, couple of, two or three centuries, it’s fascinating to see how, when Europe went out to colonise the world, which leaders actually paused, and looked to understand those that they are conquering, those that they will rule, and how to rule.
Does one only rule, obviously, with the gun and the bullet, or does one try to rule through understanding culture? And, of course, there is a pragmatic side, you know, how to manipulate the culture of the rule, but also how to work within cultures, and only, perhaps at last resort, bring in the military. So, these are debates, which was older Caesar, and from Caesar to our times. He’s the first, I think, who really articulates, where it’s written down in such enormous detail, this kind of a mind, approaching this human endeavour in conquering and colonisation. I think, it’s also, we’re going to link, because, obviously, we are starting with France, and the ancient, and then mediaeval, then contemporary history, and literature, and art, and theatre of France. So, I’m going to include the aspect of where Caesar talks about, you know, Gaul, and the pressure between Gaul and the Germans, and the Gauls and the British, all in his cultural commentaries, which fascinates me. I’m going to hold back on Shakespeare’s remarkable play, ‘cause I’m sure we all had to study it at school, or read it somewhere, or saw it. I’m got to hold back on a lot of that. Shakespeare took most of the story from Plutarch, the great Roman historian, and possibly some others. So, I’m going to hold back on that, though, just focusing a little bit more on Caesar’s as a writer, and as a cultural thinker, if you like.
Because what fascinates me is when we think about, with this guy, his way of thinking, and his way of living, in relation to many of the iconic figures of the more recent centuries, which we, perhaps, relate to in our own imagination more. So, of course, he is interested in power. He comes from a highly aristocratic family in Rome. Is he a benevolent dictator? Is he a tyrant? Is he more a reformer? Is he a saviour? Is he a man of the people, who is also a ruthless dictator, or a saviour of the people? These debates were had amongst the Roman historians of his own time. Cicero lived in his time, wrote about these things. Plutarch later, Suetonius, and others, who are some of the fantastic ancient Roman historians, you know, seem to have this debate. Of course, they cart it in various ways because they have to be very careful not to be too anti the notion of emperor, because they’re obviously living in empire times. But nevertheless, we’re able to read between the lines. And not only that, they, some of them are quite direct in debating the ideas. You know, what is it to be a reformer, and yet be an autocrat? And what is it to be a tyrant, who is not a reformer, and what is he trying to reform, et cetera, and so on? So, all of these things begin, I would suggest, in the most articulate and written way, with Caesar. I’m going to show one or two short clips from a couple of movies that have been made, one with Richard Harris, and some others, which I think just capture interesting brief episodes in the guy’s life, which are not that well known. I’m going to hold back on showing images from movies of, you know, the most well known aspects of his life, or the play.
So, this comes at a time in Roman history where we have the shift from republic, or relative, or partly republic, to empire. And of course by republic, it’s not the same as we understand democracy of Greece, where, you know, at least the citizens, the male citizens, have the vote, of Athens. Here, it’s really the aristocratic nobles, the families, the wealthy, et cetera. It’s all dictated by money. But it is a shift from a more republic approach to leadership, to an empire approach to leadership, with an emperor. So, a radical, and such an important shift in our own Western history. I’m also going to mention a fascinating example of Caesar’s relationship to Jews, and to the Jewish nation, which, obviously, was partly a province of the Roman Empire, not entirely, but partly a province of the Roman Empire at the time. He also showed mercy and clemency. He forgave quite a few of his enemies, later. He rewarded them. Cicero, the great thinker, and the great, if you like, philosopher, and cultural thinker of his times, to use our words today, Cicero was also one of the richest men in Rome of the times, so he had plenty time to philosophise and write. He was not a military leader. But his writings are fascinating, and inform Western thought today. Cicero, of course, argued that, well, he had to keep his enemies on his side, so he included them in the Senate, included them in his military setup, and so on. But it’s also smart. It’s the old Lyndon Johnson phrase.
You know, better to have your enemies inside the tent so you can see where they piss, rather than outside the tents, where you can’t see where they piss. But we have many examples of leaders today who still don’t adhere to that old dictum of Cicero and Caesar. What did he do? He gave land to the poor. Now, this is the time of his five years when he was dictator, from 49 to 44 BC, before he’s killed. And we all know the Ides of March, et cetera. Now, in those years, what does he do? Which is the reformist side of the argument. He gives land to poorer people. He refused to have a personal bodyguard in Rome, which was virtually unheard of. I mean, it’s unheard of today, but it’s virtually unheard of for a man who declares himself dictator, emperor almost, of Rome, refuse to have a personal bodyguard. He disbanded his favourite two legions. And these are the legions that had helped him win the Battle of Philippi against, in the great civil war with Pompey. He disbands his favourite and most loyal two legions. These are thousand and thousands of armed, well-trained veterans of many military battles with him, and love him. He retires them, and introduces the idea of what we would call pension today. Not before. It wasn’t really known. Of course, he got power through force, but he didn’t keep it through military force. And that is a fascinating distinction, after he becomes dictator in 49. He also, he rebuilt cities. He brought, he tried to help the development of medicine, the arts. He loved literature and music. He decided that the debt of a man could be repaid according to what he could pay, which is, this is revolutionary. Maybe this is beyond reform. But, you know, in the ancient Latin, the word is more reform, when one reads the commentators afterwards.
So, he doesn’t punish. He has tried to show, “Okay, you owe a debt. Well, instead of prison, or being killed, or whatever, pay your debt according to what you can pay.” A radical idea, more than reformist. He had laws prohibiting the bribes of governors, because, of course, governors of all the Roman provinces would get bribes from many of the people and the small military groups around, and, you know, utterly corrupt, total corruption everywhere, and so on. But he prohibited it. And how did he do it? Each governor of each province had to produce three copies of their financial affairs, independent of each other. Oh, if only that could happen today, amongst our leaders. Caesar forced this through. So, not so easy to have one governor bribed, because you got to have three copies of every financial affair, if you’re a governor of a Roman province. His aim was reforming, and to, he wanted to integrate the provinces of empire into one great united states of empire, of the Roman Empire, if you like. The first to think of a European union, the first to think of a united empire of provinces, which are relatively self-ruling, so long as, of course, they pay taxes to Rome, and you often supplied a certain number of soldiers, not always, to Rome. But mostly, they left their religion and other local customs, ethnic religious customs, they left most of the provinces to their own will, which is what the British took up much later, cleverly, in not all, but quite a few of the nations that they colonised and conquered. Religion, very careful not to touch it too much. Let it be.
He also said that if you’re part of our empire, whatever province you are, you can be eligible for citizenship to be a Roman. You don’t need to go through all the forms, and the paperwork, this, that, et cetera. You just have to be a citizen of a province, and you’re part of the empire. So he expanded the notion, the very idea, of who is the alien, who is the illegal immigrant, in today’s jargon, and who is the citizen. Total change in attitude. Of course, as Cicero argued, well, all of this would help stop, you know, other ethnic groups from attacking him, or challenging him, 'cause he kept them all happy. So, Cicero always saw the alternative, and this fascinating debate between the two, and Cicero’s arguments, but he never touched Cicero, or any of the others who argued these things. But Cicero was trying to argue for the reinstatement of the republic. What else did he do? He gave citizenship rights to Gaul. Took him nearly four years to conquer Gaul, what we would call today, France, probably quite a bit of Belgium, Holland, and the other so-called low countries. And in those days, of course, it’s just horses, and infantry, marching on foot. And let’s, you know, there’s no mistake. There’s like, a hell of a lot of people living in Gaul, and make sure that the Germanic tribes do not come across, and he invades Britain, and North Africa, and parts of Spain, Middle East, et cetera.
And of course, as Cicero argued, well, he’d get more soldiers for his army, which is true, absolutely. So the idea was to become a superpower. And this is what he wanted to take Rome towards, a united, integrated state, with a superpower, but bring the smaller powers along with, rather than antagonise the smaller powers. He radically increased the number of senators in the Roman Senate to 900. Now, this is fascinating, 'cause this goes to the heart of a debate around the Ides of March, and Brutus and the others stabbing him to death. Because he made the senators, he made 900 senators, and he said anybody from the governing provinces could apply to become a senator. In other words, you could be born in any other provinces anywhere, you could rise through the military or other things wherever, independent of loyalty, even to Caesar, become a senator. You could come from fairly lowly origins, as what Napoleon took. And you could become a general in the army, you could become a senator, and so on. In other words, opportunity through merit, not only through royal birth. Radical idea, called reformist, at the time. Cicero, and the debate, went on at the time. Well, what really was the cause that they wanted to kill him, when Brutus and the others did? And there is a debate, which is pretty well documented by Plutarch and some of the later Roman historians. Was it because he made the senator’s number up to 900, and opened the army to so many so-called ordinary people? Thereby threatening the power of the already established Roman aristocracy, who were much smaller, and came from, you know, ancient Roman royal families.
Suddenly, they would be outnumbered. What would happen to their privileges? They would be outvoted, outnumbered in the Senate. What would happen? So, was the assassination of Caesar really about him turning a democratic republic into a tyrannical dictatorship? Or was it partly about, he was reforming the country, the constitution, the Senate, in all these ways, the land, the poor, et cetera, the ways I’ve described, which were then going to threaten the privilege held by a few hundred Roman senators, who owned most of the land, had most of the wealth, power, and so on? What really was the cause for his assassination? Leave aside Shakespeare for the moment. But this debate, when you read the ancient writings, is fantastically fascinating, and, I think, speaks to quite a bit of the stuff today. And I don’t think it’s just a conspiracy theory, 'cause it’s quite well evidenced in not only Plutarch, but some of the others. In his will, which Shakespeare does capture in the play, he left what the Roman historians later called a substantial gift to the ordinary citizens of Rome. In other words, land, property, money.
Well, that’s more than reformist, that’s radical, for these, or any times, I would imagine. So, the Roman senators would not have been unaware of all these things. Not only his will, but many other things. And that is a very important point taken up in the great Mark Antony’s speech, you know, in, “Friends, Romans, and countrymen,” in the play, that very point. Well, if he is purely a tyrant, why is he leaving so much to the ordinary citizen? I mean, I can’t stress the word ordinary, the middle and lower classes. So what kind of a leader is this? To come back to our first question, what kind of a leader do we have from antiquity, for our times today? Napoleon, while he was in Saint Helena, you know, after he was defeated by Wellington, and the Prussian army under Blucher, as we all know, was sent to Saint Helena, and he wrote there, he wrote the histories, his own history, of Caesar, analysing the battles, analysing the kind of leader, his mistakes, his successes, everything. Napoleon knew what this guy had done, inside out, and had read it, inside out. Caesar, in turn, had read and understood as much as he could about Alexander the Great. I’m not going to go into it, though. That would be another whole fascinating discussion. But for me, he’s up there, with Alexander, with Napoleon, Caesar. A little bit different to Genghis Khan, as four of the, I suppose, amongst the most powerful conquerors from historical times, and leaders, who were not only military, but also tried to bring in all these other cultural, and, let’s say, perhaps, reformist or semi-reformist ideas. Okay, so, here’s a picture of, this is from the “Commentaries, The Complete Gallic Wars.”
We only have surviving the commentaries on what was called, “The Commentaries on the Gallic Wars and Others.” You know, we don’t have many of his other writings. Unfortunately, they didn’t survive. But nevertheless, it’s not just an account of battles. It’s all this cultural stuff. And I’m going to read some brief phrases from his Commentaries around the cultural aspects of the French, the Germans, the Britains, you know, that he wrote about. This is a picture here, this is a 1700s version of “Caesar’s Commentaries,” on the right and on the left. And in the middle, “Napoleon’s Commentaries on the Wars of Caesar,” which Napoleon wrote, or had dictated. So I want to show, these guys are totally aware of what has gone before. You know, they have read, they’ve understood, they’ve analysed. To give you one example here, this was the Roman Empire at Caesar’s death. So he had conquered, you can see, I mean, he had invaded Britain, up in the top left, but we wouldn’t call it a conquest. He had invaded twice. That came, the real conquest came later, with Hadrian’s wall, et cetera. So there’s the Gauls, there’s the French, the Belgians, the Dutch, you know, all those countries around there. The border of the Rhine, the Germans, into there, down Spain, little bit more of Spain there, what we know of it, North Africa, he reconquered, Carthage. He had conquered some of Egypt, but he was in alliances, and you can see the other parts there. Okay, this is what he established, for him, as the beginning of the Roman Empire. And this is what Augustus, his nephew, his great nephew, took and developed much further, together with others.
And this was the Roman Empire at its zenith. You can see where it had conquered around the Mediterranean, everywhere. I’m sure everybody knows this pretty well. And as a contrast, you know, of the Roman Empire at its great height, and the influence, this is the Mongol Empire in blue, compared to the Roman Empire. The biggest empire of its time, under Genghis Khan, with horses and infantry, conquering this amount of land. But that would involve, you know, whole series of discussions on Genghis Khan, and what happened all there, with China, and India, and Asia, and everywhere, et cetera. Western civilization, obviously, massively influenced by the Greeks and the Romans. The Mongol, a whole separate series of discussions for that. Some examples, on the left is Mark Antony. This is what is regarded as a sculpture of Antony, possibly closest. Just as a little side note, none of the leaders wanted to be seen as bald, obviously, but Caesar, we’re pretty sure, was bald. So, they would put hair on the sculptures. But this is the closest we can get, I think, historically, to Antony. And on the right, Caesar’s great rival, Pompey. And Pompey said that he would be for the Senate, and he would be for the republic, and keep the republic and the semi-democracy going, hence the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, the great civil war between these two great generals, at the time, which Pompey loses, and Caesar wins, and becomes dictator.
He is victorious in the Gallic Wars. He’s victorious in the Germanic battles on the Rhine. He’s victorious in Spain, in North Africa, in Egypt. He is victorious in the invasions of everywhere, and, sorry, a couple of battles he lost, but I’m not going to get into that side of it here. Now, what’s important is that after conquering Gaul, the Senate ordered Caesar to step down from military command, 'cause the idea was the Senate ruled, and the senators were the ultimate source of power. The generals had to disband the army, and step down from command, at the River Rubicon, which was, at the time, seen as the river bordering into, entry into Italy, of the times. By the way, nobody can really identify the Rubicon River today. It might have been a little trickle, it might have been a little river, who knows? But there isn’t hard evidence of where the Rubicon actually is today. So that’s where it comes from, the crossing the Rubicon. Caesar crosses the Rubicon with his favourite legion, and he says, “The die is cast.” He breaks one of the most important rules of ancient Rome, because this means that he is setting up for civil war with Pompey, because he is crossing, with his legions, who have conquered Gaul, all these other areas, and he’s marching on Rome, with his army. But, oh, the other things that he introduced, of course, is the Julian calendar, which is basically our calendar today, where he added three extra months. And this differed from the Egyptian calendar, which, or the influence of the Egyptian party, the Greek of ancient times, which had gone more by day and night, by moon and sun. He made it by, obviously, the seasons. I’ve mentioned the citizenship, I’ve mentioned, he also tried to centralise bureaucracy, et cetera. Of course, for all of this, he was loved by the ordinary people and the middle classes.
And that’s where that debate came in between him and the aristocratic classes of Rome, and how much he had angered the elites on becoming dictator, on crossing the Rubicon. So, was their assassination a build up to stop a conspiracy, to stop where he was going to radically reform more and more, or was it really to restore a republic? The debate continues today. Just a couple of things from his childhood, which, I think, give an indication about this guy’s life. His father dies in 85 BC, when he is 16. That’s Gaius, who was a very important military figure. Anyway, Caesar is 16. And Sulla, Sulla, or Sulla, however you pronounce it, is really a semi-despotic leader of the Senate, and leader of Rome, and is setting up, because he has the Roman army behind him, he is setting up, basically, a totalitarian state in Rome. So much for the republic of the time. 'Cause the senators don’t want to assassinate Sulla. They’re too scared. Anyway, Caesar is terrified, and his family say, “Get out.” And he gets out to another island, and he manages to escape Sulla. I’m going to show a little clip of that. And finally, Sulla died in 78 BC, and, which is about seven years after, he’s about 25, Caesar is safe to return to Rome. On his way across the Aegean Sea, at the age of 24 or 25, crossing the sea, he was kidnapped, by pirates. He’s held prisoner, and he’s, this is a true story, he says to the pirates, “You only want 20 talents of silver for me? That’s all the ransom you want? I am Julius Caesar. I am son of,” da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da. “I demand that you ask for 50 talents of silver!”
In other words, “More than double the money, in ransom, for me, because I am worth that much, much more.” And the pirates are stunned by this. I want to show a way of thinking of a young 20-year-old, 25-year-old, that he can say this when his life is being threatened by cutthroat pirates, for a ransom. And he demands that they, that otherwise, he’s going to kill himself. He demands 50 talents of silver for his life. Anyway, eventually, his family pay the ransom, he’s released, and then he jokes afterwards, “Well, once I’m released, I’m going to raise a fleet, and I’m going to pursue you pirates. I’m going to capture you, and I’m going to crucify you, each one of you, and crucify you while you’re alive.” And they laugh, and they think it’s a joke, and everything, et cetera. Well, Julius Caesar fulfilled the promise. He captured each one of the pirates, he crucified each one, but as a sign of clemency, he looked at them, and he said, “Because you were friendly with me for that month I was on your ship, I will slit your throat before I nail you to the cross.” This is a 25-year-old, thinking all these ways of how to, what is leadership, again. In 69 BC, he’s in his early 30s, around the age of 33, and he goes to a statue of Alexander the Great, and he wails, what Alexander had done by the time he was that age, and what has he, Caesar, done? Very little. And so, he gets on his, literally and figuratively, on his high horse, “Right, I’m going to do a hell of a lot more.” He goes off to conquer Gaul, he goes off to get rid of the German tribes, he’s threatening Gaul, on the Rhine, the area of the Rhine, and of course, the civil war that I mentioned. He pursued Pompey all the way to each of Pompey’s legions, thousands and thousands of Roman troops, the civil war between the Romans, who is going to rule, and which side of the Romans.
I mean, this is a massive civil war between the two. And it’s Romans fighting Romans, family fighting family. But he outwits Pompey’s troops, not through his numbers, but through his intelligence as a military leader, and understanding Pompey’s psychology. And he, then finally, he, some of Pompey’s close associates go against him, and they cut off his head, and they bring the head to Caesar. Caesar cries, and he says, “This was a great man, and you cut his head off?” And he orders the assassination of the killers of Pompey. They’re put to death. Caesar was part of the Egyptian civil war. Now, this is fascinating, but different to Shakespeare, where the Pharaoh was in conflict with a co-regent who, of course, name was Cleopatra. And Caesar sides with Cleopatra, and beats the baddy, Pharaoh, and he has a relationship with her, we all know about. He doesn’t let himself fall in love, or get infatuated, whatever. It’s pretty political, I think, for him, and military. And he has a whole big thing. Possibly has a son called Caesarion. We’re not sure, historically. And Cleopatra visited Rome at least three times that are documented, and stayed in his villa in Rome, just outside Rome, on, just across from the Tiber River. So, I just give you some of these small anecdotes to try and give you a broader picture of the amount, I mean, he’s only doing this on a horseback. Constitution, what he’s tried to do with the empire, with Rome, with changing the debt. And then what he did was he took the idea of debt even further. So, he cancelled a quarter of any person’s debt, when a person, when an individual said they could not pay it.
Unilaterally ordered, a quarter of your debt will be gone. I mean, you know, we can’t imagine the impact of this. We can’t imagine how popular he is amongst the middle and lower classes, and how unpopular he is amongst the elite and the aristocrats. The debt restructuring law, as it’s come down in our jargon today. He started building a new library at Alexandria. He started many, many other things, which, of course, he couldn’t finish because he is assassinated. And when he is assassinated, there is historical evidence that not only Mark Antony’s great one speech, “Friends, Romans, and countrymen,” but that the middle and lower classes, the middle classes of Rome, are so enraged, I would guess we would call them the mercantile class today, are so angry at what the senators have done, they turn on the elite group of aristocratic senators, and hence, the battle begins between Mark Antony and Brutus, as we all know from the great play of Shakespeare’s. Caesar also, we think, had epilepsy. We’re not sure. They called it the falling sickness, is the vague translation from the Latin, but it might have been malaria, it might have been seizures. There’s a recent theory that he had a series of mini strokes. I’m not sure, but possibly epilepsy, probably. Say, all of this, and in addition, this is what this guy is doing with his life, one life? It’s fascinatingly inspiring. You know, the Alexander, when we get into that, what he went through, did, Napoleon, this guy, you know? Of course, then Augustus takes over, and becomes, sets up the cult of personality, and the strong man who’s charismatic leader, and in the cult of personality.
So, all this becomes, in a way, written about. For the first time, it’s written, in commentaries, inscribed, it’s analysed, they try to understand it. It’s really gone into in detail. It is gone into detail by some of the Greek writers before, but these guys take it further. Okay, some examples of a few things that he wrote, about the Britains. And I’m quoting here from Caesar. “There are people who crossed from the Belgians to make war on the islanders. Then they remained there, and began to cultivate the soil. For money, they use gold coins and bars of iron. They consider it contrary to divine law to eat the rabbit, the chicken, the goose, but they use them for their amusement. I have yet to ascertain why. The most civilised of the Britains, that I have met and noted, are those who dwell in the area of Kent. They do not differ much from the Gaul in their customs. Those who dwell inland do not sow grain, harvest farms, but live on milk and flesh of animals. They clothe themselves in bits of skin of animals. All the Britains paint themselves a dark blue colour. They think this makes them frightful in battle. I am not sure, having spoken to quite a number of my commanders, if this works. The Britain’s hair is long, and yet they shave the rest of their body, including the upper lip. They share their wives amongst their brothers. We have yet to ascertain why.
When they fight, they fight often with chariots, and the charioteers ride in all directions, as if to disturb our ranks. But then, when the chariots arrive amongst our soldiers, their soldiers jump off the chariots, and then they fight us on foot. The chariots retreat. We have yet to ascertain the intelligence of this tactic.” And he goes on and on and on. It’s written in this considered, thoughtful, analytical way. He does use the word barbarian, or barbari, in the ancient Latin. Everyone was called barbarian and barbari, but often calls them Britains as well. Contrast that to, you know, the three great Cs of the British Empire, which David Livingstone summarised in the three great Cs, commercialise, Christianize, civilise, the savages of Africa, of Australia, of Canada. Commercialise, Christianize, civilise, the three great Cs. It’s interesting to mention that he was a junior officer in the Roman army during the time of Spartacus and the slave rebellion. We all know the great Kirk Douglas movie of Kubrick’s. He was indifferent to religion, Caesar. He saw that they had basically all the same gods, just different names for him. So, the gods of Greece and Rome, he saw in Gaul, he called them Jupiter, Pluto, Mars, Apollo. Yeah, the Romans are kind of adapted, very pragmatic people. They adapted, not ideologically, adapted, you know, the gods could be this or could be that. Didn’t want to interfere, with the religious rules, and rituals of conquered peoples. But there were two conquered peoples who declined community of belief with the Romans. That’s Caesar’s phrase. And they were the Egyptians and the Jews. I’m going to come back to the Jews in a moment.
He notes that the druids were the leaders of the religions amongst the Gauls, who, he suggested, had taken to the Britains. But there were no religious leaders equivalent, no druids amongst the Germans. “They are used everywhere,” he wrote, “but not in Germania.” Interesting why. “The druids, they believe that the soul, after death, passes from one body to another, to another, to another. I wonder how many souls can exist in a living body of a German or a Gaul that I meet.” Sorry, “a Britain or a Gaul that I meet.” 'Cause these are from the druids. “And the druids,” he notes, “were invested with judicial power.” So the ultimate power rested with the druids, religiously orientated. Quite different from what Rome had set up with the senators, the Senate, and the military. He also notes that the Gauls seemed addicted to superstition. “In war and before war, they sacrifice their own man, and believe this will help them win the battle.” How do they do it? And he said, “They seem to think that mercy is to break the neck of one of their men, from a great height, rather than burn him to death.” And then he talks about their funerals. “The funerals of the Gauls set everything dear to the deceased, including their animals, their live slaves, are thrown into the pile of fire.” We get to understand something of how ancient peoples lived, according to, you know, what Mister Caesar wrote. Then he writes about the Britains. “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music, nor literature, nor the arts.” That’s Caesar’s quote. Cicero even agreed with him. And he wrote to his friend, Atticus. He advised him, “Do not buy slaves from the Britains.” And this is Cicero. “The Britains cannot be taught to read.
They are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw. They cannot be taught music, literature, or the arts. Do not buy slaves from the Britains.” I mean, what do you make of all this, when we read this today? And, for me, it’s fascinating, because, okay, the word slavery, but is it so far from our attitudes today, of superior, inferior? Who really is more important, who is less? Who do we put up on a pedestal, who don’t we? The ancient binary of colonised, coloniser, colonised, superior-inferior battle, the Prospero, the Caliban. So, he talks about how the Britains, you know, “plunge into swamps, and live there for hours, with only their head above the water,” how the Britains, “are often naked, and they do not seem to mind the mud, because, I think, they are unfamiliar with proper clothing.” And he goes on and on. The Gauls, “for the Gauls, the most heavy punishment was not actually death. I discovered, for the Gauls, the worst punishment was to be excommunicated from your tribe,” fascinating. And of course, he adds, at the end of that paragraph, “The druids never go to war themselves.” “The Germans do not permit their children to approach them openly in public until they are grown up. This, they seem to think, will prepare them better for the service of being warlike.” And then he goes on, “The Germans differ. They have no druids. They are trained- Germans do not, that they go into an area, and they plant a few things in the land, but only live for a year or two in that area.
And then they move to another area, so that they never become accustomed to one area, but accustomed to a life of continual, physical hardship. By constantly moving, setting up little bits of hovels, homes, wooden huts, and constantly having to redo everything, they think it’ll harden them for battle, and for war.” And he wonders why, if this really works. He also notes that the Germans, “they favour two things, idleness and war.” And he tries to understand, how can a people who love to be idle, and drink, and feast so much, also love not having peace? And the only two things that matter are idleness and war, and how they send their women and the elderly to get food and other things, and the children. And the children are not allowed to approach them in public. They’re not allowed to approach the mother or the father, rarely, in public, without special permission. With regarding the Jews, what’s fascinating is that Caesar besieged Alexandria, and this is during the civil war, Pompey was still fighting against him in the civil war, and he was desperate for extra information, desperate for some soldiers. And I’m not going to go into the details of the names of the Jewish leaders at the time, but the Jews switched sides against Pompey because also, Pompey had invaded the temple in Jerusalem, and had, you know, done terrible things there, and horrible things to the Jews in Jerusalem. Anyway, so the Jews sided with Caesar, sent him soldiers, and gave free passage, and food, and many, many other things. Really helped him overcome a massive siege in Alexandria. And as a result, Caesar wrote decrees, restoring to Judea, the port of Jaffa. “I, Caesar,” da-da-da, “will reconstruct, I allow the reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem, the reconstruction of the temple, a new administration in Judea. I confirm Hyrcanus, and his descendants, as the high priests of Judea.”
It goes on and on. “I set the tax at only 12.5% of the produce of the land, with total exemption during their Jewish sabbatical year. I permit all Jewish organisation in what they call the diaspora.” That’s obviously a contemporary word from the Latin. And he goes on and on, of many other things. He never forgot how the Jews helped him. “I, Julius Caesar,” you can read decree after decree here. “It is my wish,” and so on. But he has this phrase, “That I recognise the right of the Jews to live according to their ancestral laws, in their ancestral land.” It was part of his general policy, of course, going back to what I said at the beginning, of religious toleration. Tolerate religion, wherever, because then, of course, you keep more of the colonised people on board. And this phrase of the ancestral laws, and the ancestral sacred rights, this comes from Caesar himself, has gone down through the centuries. Of course, Cicero and others said, “Well, of course, he’s going to get the loyalty because he’s been benevolent to them, and, you know, they’ll obey the power of Rome.” And what Caesar himself called, the integration of all peoples under the empire. What became known in Roman law as sub solo imperio nostro, which Cato had said 120 years before, which basically meant the creation of United States of Rome, which he had dreamed of. I’m not going to go into how this links later to Herod becoming, you know, the ruler of Judea. There are many other phrases here, and I think it’s time to show a little bit of a clip I want to show. This is a clip from a movie with Richard Harris. But it’s a young Caesar, the idea which, and this is, more or less, historically accurate. A young Caesar in the face of Sulla, the guy I mentioned earlier, who had him sent off, the age of 16, away from Rome, to the island, before he was captured by the pirates coming back.
CLIP BEGINS
It’s in any ruler’s interest to keep peace among the people. And the people will only be at peace if they have a Senate represented.
Since when did the Senate ever represent the people? Cato, why is your mouth hanging open? You have nothing to fear. You are not on my list.
Sir, if I were on your list, and it were for the good of Rome, I would gladly die.
Well, when you say that, I truly believe it to be true. So, I repeat, when did the Senate ever represent the people? I want the man with the humblest upbringing to answer me. Hm? You? You? So it’s me. I will answer you. You are all aristocrats. Your feet have never touched the ground. Your ass has never touched a horse. How can you possibly represent the people whom most of you have never even met?
We represent the people by preserving their traditions. If they think you want to be king-
King? Did you say king? King? What’s with the name king, by me, that I don’t already have?
Yeah, if the people know the Senate is still meeting, to advise you.
Oh yes, oh yes. Oh, they will. That is my fondest wish. So, I would not be a true Republican if I did not introduce a, how do I say it, a earthier element among your ranks. Gentlemen? You will continue to advise me, and you will continue to debate what is best for the people, but my men will remain here, just to make sure that the decisions that you reach are the proper one.
But sir, is this not counter to Roman law?
I have just changed Roman law.
I understand, sir, but will something of the old ways be preserved?
What Metellus means is not that we would ask you to pardon anyone whom you’ve resolved to destroy, only that it might have a calming effect if you could make known, whom you intend to spare.
Oh, come, come, Cato. You know how alliances change in troubled times.
Well then, perhaps you can tell us who you intend to kill. Well, let’s begin with you.
I was only asking what everyone was thinking.
Well, I can’t possibly kill everyone, so, I will kill only you. I may withdraw that. Then again, I may not. I will let you know after dinner. But for your sake, you better hope the food is good.
CLIP ENDS
- Now we’ll see him, Sulla, with a young Caesar, who’s been arrested, for helping one of the, or Cinna, who was one of the leaders opposing Sulla. Richard Harris is obviously playing Sulla here. And a young Caesar is taken to him.
CLIP BEGINS
Are you Julius Caesar?
Yes.
This way.
And he’s meant to be about 16, so that’s why.
I want to see Sulla, please. No, I want to see Sulla! I’ve been a member of the Senate for 30 years! I want to see Sulla! Take me to Sulla!
That is not the postman. Who’s this?
Julius Caesar.
Ah, nephew to Marius. You have unfortunate ancestry.
If you think it’s unfortunate to be descended from the gods.
But which god was that?
The Julians are descended from Aeneas, who was-
The son of Venus, ah yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I recall Marius making such claim. There are many people these days who claim to be descended from gods.
We have a crest which proves it.
I believe you could have them fashioned in the marketplace for a couple of dinars.
Why did you ask to see me?
Your mother, she came to see me.
Did she ask you to spare my life, and what, you agreed?
Well, I promised that I would consider it.
And I’m supposed to be grateful to you?
No. Cheers, we’re old friends.
You’ve killed a lot of old friends.
Oh yes, true, true, true. Old friends in the day become fresh enemies at night.
What do you want in exchange for my life?
Why do you think I want anything in exchange?
And like you don’t give things away for free?
I’m not a man without compassion. I will help you if I can. First, you must understand the gravity of your crime. Cinna was my greatest enemy, and you helped him to escape.
Did he?
Course not. He did escape my soldiers, only to be killed by one of his servants.
My wife?
She’s well. I leave women to their health. And since you are only the son of Cinna by marriage, I intend to leave you to yours.
If?
If you divorce your wife. Well?
No, I refuse.
You refuse to divorce your wife, even though it may cost you your life?
My wife is my teacher. She’s cleverer than I am. She’s more honest than I am. She’s a more compelling argument than I am, or you are, or your office is. I won’t divorce her. That is my answer.
Oh, Pompey, what do we do with men such as this? I don’t know whether to embrace him or strangle him.
I think we should let him go.
What? His Uncle Marius was my greatest enemy. He’s got 10 Mariuses inside him. Look at his eyes. You want to let him go?
It’s the ones who smile and flatter you should worry about. He speaks plainly.
You do speak plainly, don’t you?
Always.
Tell me, would you kill me, if you could?
In an instant.
Ha ha. You can go. I said, you are free to go.
CLIP ENDS
- I’m going to hold this little clip here. I think it’s superb writing about the political shenanigans about, based on this true story, with Sulla, and young Caesar, and the wife. Sorry, he’s not 16 here, he’s slightly older. But it’s a, we don’t know the exact words, of course, what actually was said between them, at all, but that this did happen. So, but, obviously, it’s a contemporary, you know, superb bit of writing. I wanted to show it because it shows something of how we perceive the leadership, the character of leadership of Caesar today. That there are principles, not only pure opportunism of any kind. How insurrections, you know, were portrayed in this old movie, and insurrections that we have today. So, all of these things around questions of leadership, I think, are thrown up by movies, and how we portray how we imagine leadership of antiquity. And just to conclude, with a couple of great quotes from Caesar. “Free yourself from the influence of hatred, friendship, anger, pity. When these intervene, the mind cannot judge the truth, and no one ever served his emotions and his best interests simultaneously.” Such a real insight into constantly mobilise the thinking mind, not only be susceptible to emotion, which Shakespeare takes up massively in the play. You know, Mark Antony, he will give up being one of the rulers of Rome for his infatuation slash love for Cleopatra in the play, which Shakespeare plays with. One thing I want to mention is, oh, actually, just to go on here, we can see, these are a couple of other, of the little, of the quotes from Caesar.
“It is better to create than to learn. Creating is the essence of life.” And he goes onto a longer section here, about how to take meaningful risk. Fascinating, because when you read his writings about crossing the Rhine to take on the German tribes, and the detail, he talks about, and it’s his words, the laws of physics, the force of the current of the river, and how to find the best place to build a bridge, how to build the bridge. It’s going to take thousands of Roman soldiers over, the chariots, horses, everything, you know, to take on the German tribes on the other side. How to build the bridge, and he’s involved in the detail of building a bridge, you know, of the laws of physics, as he calls them, and understanding them. “Cowards may die many times before their actual death.” “I’d rather be a first in a village than a second in Rome.” It’s one of the great phrases of all time, come down from Caesar. “Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true.” As we all know, we rather believe what we want to believe than what may be the truth. “It’s easier to find men who will volunteer to die than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.” “The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look.” Remember the great opening scene of “The Godfather,” with Brando telling, or the funeral scene, when Brando tells Pacino, you know, who the real enemy in here. And of course, turns out to be in the last place, he’s hiding in the last place you’d ever look. “It is better to die once than to always be expecting death.” And I love this phrase in blue. “If you must break the law, well, do it to seize power. In all other cases, observe it.”
So, I see wit, I see, and of course, Churchill has read all these guys, and studied them, and you can see the influence in Churchill’s wit, and comprehension, insights of culture and history, and not only a curiosity, but a profound desire to understand from within another culture when you conquer it, not only, you know, use the gun or the sword, and how then to rule, in all these ways that I’ve mentioned. Okay, so, I’m going to hold it on this. Of course, there’s so much more. I mean, this is one of the great characters, cast of characters, in history. Not only Shakespeare’s play, but so many other things written about him, artistically and historically. But I’ve tried to just encapsulate an essence, which I hope can help ground us as we look towards Western European civilization from early times, starting, as I know Trudy and William are, with France, the Gauls. Okay, thank you very much, everybody. And I can take the questions.
Q&A and Comments:
Q: Okay, so from Romain, “How was the ambiguity of the man’s character dealt with by Shakespeare?”
A: Well, it’s similar to what I was trying to say here. You know, that, is he trying to set himself up as a tyrant-type dictator, or a more benevolent dictator, who is not just loved by the people, but who’s really trying to make decisions in the interest of the people? Is he trying to go against a small elite group of aristocrats who mostly bribe their way in to be voted onto the Senate? Is he trying to do a military coup d'etat, and take over? I think Shakespeare tries to capture all of this in the play. And hence, he does have that, for example, the will is very important. Mark Antony’s great speech, where he reads that he’s left a huge amount of land and money to the ordinary people of Rome, and, you know, all the other reforms. So, I think that the ambiguity is captured there, because also, Brutus, who is one of the closest generals to Caesar, ultimately leads the assassination, and Brutus and Cassius did actually go through Rome, proclaiming, “People of Rome, we are free, we are free!”
Well, the ordinary people looked at these guys, thought, “But you’re generals, you’re a few hundred aristocrats. You own everything, you rule everything. Who’s free?” You know, historically. So, and Mark Antony, in Shakespeare’s speech, brilliantly captures that, and turns it on its table. And then, of course, you know, we have the whole, the love story, of Antony and Cleopatra. But I think Shakespeare tries to grapple with what is, what makes a great leader. And remember, Shakespeare is not living in times of anything vaguely close to democracy. He’s living in times of, you know, of the queen, of Elizabeth, and then James, after, you know, divine right of kings, et cetera, and queens. So, I think he’s trying to show, once you do have to have a so-called strong man-woman leader, what kind of leadership is possible. And, I think, within the limitations of his own limits, at the time where he’s living, Shakespeare, I do think that play remarkably captures what I’ve tried to tease out today.
Gene, “I will recall translating Caesar’s "Gallic Wars” from a trick in Joburg many years ago.“ Ah, that’s great. I recall having to translate, was it, I think it was Ovid, you know, the poetry, great.
Rodney, "Please read some of his "Commentarii de Bello Gallico.” Yeah, I mean, there’s so many more on Gaul, and on the Germans, and on Britains. I wanted to try and show some examples. One other fascinating thing he talks about the Gauls and the Britains is that they would have, in Caesar’s words, “the frenzied families, and frenzied women, near them at the battle, so they always knew who they were fighting for.” Their women and their children, their families were never far from the battle. So the Britains, he would have, and the Gauls, had what he called frenzied women, and family, and children very close to the battle. And sometimes, the women would go, in his, in Caesar’s word, “frenzied, in and amongst their own soldiers.” So, of course, they knew who they were fighting for. And this idea of the Gauls also was that you would fight close to your brothers and kinsmen from your family. So, obviously, if you’re fighting with your brothers very close, you’re going to, you know, maybe put in a lot more effort. And Caesar is the first to tease out such tiny detail to understand the opposition, to understand from within.
Arlene, “I was told that Caesar added July and August.” Okay, I read that he added three months, but it might have been two. But let’s, I will check that research, Arlene, thank you.
Margaret, thanks. Herbert. Yeah, yeah, just to go back to that, Margaret, yeah, I wanted to try and get to Caesar’s writings, not just his military tactics, or the received perception that this was just another, you know, mad despotic tyrant general, wanting to do a coup d'etat and take over total power. Neither him, nor, I would argue, Napoleon, but, obviously, we’ll go into that much more later, in much more detail. And William and Trudy know much more than me, and Alexander, for that matter.
Herbert, “Hilarious Canadian skit by Wayne and Shuster, 'Rinse the Blood Off My Toga.’” Yeah, there’s so many great ones. And the lines, “Julie, don’t go, don’t go. I told him a thousand times.” I know, there’s fantastic, wonderful satires.
Cheryl, “I was just thinking of the Wayne and Shuster skit.” And, of course, Asterix. Asterix was based on Vercingetorix, who was the young, very vigorous Gaul leader, who managed to unite many of the tribes to take on Caesar. And then Caesar, of course, defeats. And of course, the Asterix comics, we all know.
William, okay, the movie, I’m not sure which one. Oh, Caesar and Cinna, that’s the Richard Harris movie. Sarah, “I graduated from Classics at Cambridge.” Well, fantastic. Oh, thank you very much for your kind comments. Okay, Henry, thank you. Sharon, thank you. Gail, thanks so much. Hope you’re well in Joburg.
Okay, I think we can hold it there. And thanks so much, everybody. This is a bit of a different way of thinking, but it’s in the context of France, the beginnings of Western civilization, and leadership, questions of leadership. Thanks so much, and thank you, Emily. Hope everybody is well, has a good rest of the weekend.