Julius Caesar Part II: The Later Years

When we last left old Gaius Julius Caesar, he had just won Consulship for the year in 59 BCE by a nasty, corrupt election that left no Senator clean, including Caesar's most tireless opponent, the notoriously incorruptible Cato. Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus was elected to serve as the second Consul, but would prove to be an ineffective check against his fellow executive. Supporting Caesar were Crassus, to whom Julius owed his freedom, and Pompey, whom Caesar recruited by promising to support land redistribution, a wedge issue amongst the Senators, and one that Caesar would use to cast the elite into the role of petty oligarchs and himself as the egalitarian savior of Rome.

When Caesar proposed a series of reforms designed to redistribute tracts of land to the poor, Crassus supported it on the Senate floor, while Pompey garrisoned his soldiers inside the city, frightening the moderate Senators into passing the decree. Seeking divine intervention, Bibulus tried to declare foul omens and therefore end the assembly prematurely, but he was chased off by armed supporters of Caesar and a bucket of sewage was thrown onto him as he rushed to his home to remain until the end of his term. The law passed without further delay, and thus was the First Triumvirate born: an alliance of three ambitious and savvy populists who would ultimately turn on each other. Caesar and Bibulus' Consulship was so one-sided that the Romans jokingly referred to the year 59 BCE as the Consulship of Julius and Caesar.

Caesar's father-in-law was elected as Consul during the next term, and it was lucky for Caesar because the Optimate Senators were thirsty for his blood. Instead of being confined to stewardship of a nearby uninhabited forest, Caesar's friends saw to it that he was appointed the governor of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum, in northern Italy and just east of the Adriatic Sea. He was given command over four legions and was now prepared to fight his way out of his ever-increasing debt. He made war on some local tribes which had been arming themselves, and made some money from their spoils. His term as governor was made to be five years instead of the usual one, which was lucky because otherwise his debts would have made him a slave, and he would have faced prosecutions for his quasi-legal activities while serving as Consul.

His campaigns in Gaul led him all the way to Britain, which he invaded under the pretense that they had aided a local Gallic tribe against him, a shaky accusation against anyone other than the Britons, who were mostly Gauls themselves and very similar in culture. His first invasion didn't go well and he had to return to the mainland, but he succeeded following season, securing Roman-allied control over the southern portion of the island.

Meanwhile, back in Rome, Caesar's daughter Julia, whom he had married to Pompey to secure his alliance, died during childbirth in 54 BCE. He offered him his niece Octavia, but Pompey eventually refused. Crassus died the next year while trying to invade Parthia in the east. Pompey weighed his options carefully and chose to marry Cornelia, the daughter of Caesar's enemy Quintus Metellus Scipio. In 52 BCE, political violence in the city got so bad that Pompey was declared the sole Consul, an office very different from Dictator because a Consul is answerable for their actions in office while a Dictator is not. While in office, Pompey blocked an attempt by Caesar to serve as Consul in absentia, though this had been allowed in previous years. The Triumvirate was broken and the two men left would now fight over the real prize: Rome itself.

That same year, there was a massive rebellion in Gaul led by Vercingetorix, a charismatic and capable military leader who defeated the Roman legions on more than one occasion during the war. Eventually, the Gallic forces were defeated by superior technology through the extensive siegeworks in place at the Battle of Alesia and Vercingetorix was forced to surrender. I'd like to go into more detail here, but rest assured, there will be coverage of these battles in upcoming Military Mondays.

In 50 BCE, Pompey and the Senate ordered Caesar to lay down arms, disband his troops and return to Rome. Caesar believed that it was a trap; that Pompey, who had now joined his enemies, would lead the way in prosecuting Caesar for crimes real and fabricated. He was probably not far off, for at one point that year Pompey accused Caesar publicly of insubordination and treason. January 10, 49 BCE, Gaius Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River with one legion and set off the Civil War. When many of the cities in northern Italy surrendered willingly to the invading legion, Pompey and his Senator allies abandoned Rome and sailed for Greece, taking with them every ship in the harbors of southern Italy. And so Caesar, being unable to chase his quarry, set off to challenge Pompey's lieutenants in Iberia, declaring, “I go to fight an army without a leader, so as later I may fight a leader without an army.”

He swept up the remains of forces loyal to Pompey and the Optimates in Iberia and made passage to Greece, where he would square off against his old ally and former son-in-law. At the Battle of Dyrrachium the next year, Pompey's army, which outnumbered Caesar's own legions at least 3 to 1, easily broke through Caesar's battle lines and his army routed. Caesar himself withdrew, and Pompey probably could have ended the entire war then and there, but his years of alliance with Caesar had taught him to be wary of this crafty populist. He feared a trap, and so did not pursue the enemy legions. Even Caesar remarked later that victory had belonged to his enemies, if only one of them would have claimed it.

His forces resupplied and fought the Battle of Pharsalus, in which they won an impressive and decisive victory for Caesar. The Optimates' power now broken, they fled in all directions, while Pompey sailed to Egypt where he believed he might find refuge. Instead he was assassinated, and his head presented to Caesar by Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII, who believed the gift would win him Caesar's favor. It worked in the opposite, however, and Caesar soon cast his support for Ptolemy's sister, Cleopatra VII, helping her to secure the throne of Egypt before he left. Caesar maintained a close relationship with Cleopatra, and there are historical rumors that they had a secret love child. He could have never married the Egyptian queen, however, as she was not a Roman citizen.

There was still work to be done, so Caesar granted immunity to many of his former enemy Senators, while mopping up the remnants of Pompey's forces, defeating all military opposition by 45 BCE. He had been elected Dictator in 48 and again in 47 BCE. In 46 he was appointed as Dictator for an unprecedented 10-year term, which undoubtedly led to his downfall two years later.

On the 15^th of March, 44 BCE, Caesar was attending a session of the Senate. A group of Senators had organized a conspiracy against this perpetual Dictator, calling themselves the Liberatores, or liberators. They lured Caesar into a false state of security by gathering around him to support a bill, and then proceeded to stab him repeatedly until he was dead. As many as 60 Senators participated in the assassination, and declared that Rome was now a free Republic once again.

Ultimately, Caesar's death did nothing to stem the tide of anti-Republican sentiment. In the old days of Rome, citizens were expected to be loyal to the State first, and many of the cautionary fables from the early years involve fathers ordering the executions of their own children if they betrayed the Republic. The shift from Republic to Empire was a gradual one, and as I said last week, Caesar is by no means the first ambitious Senator to have delusions of kingship. However, because the people had come to believe, generation after generation, that the Oligarchical Senators did not have their best interests at heart, they turned to Dictators and Emperors to right the wrongs that their own corrupt and bogged down bureaucracies had either created or failed to counteract. The fall of the Republic, and indeed Caesar's life as a whole, should send shivers down the spine of any government official, elected or otherwise, who fails to care for their citizens.

Pax vobiscum

Julius Caesar Part 1: The Early Years

 The Roman Republic had several huge problems by the time young Gaius Julius Caesar was born in 100 BCE. The Patrician Senate was in the midst of a conservative freak-out, fearing the now armed mob that Caesar's own uncle, Gaius Marius, had created by recruiting soldiers from the poor. Though they had fought hard against any reform that would give the Plebeians equal power, they couldn't stop the shift that was occurring right before their very eyes. And when Caesar was about 12, a wholly unprecedented and fearful thing took place: Lucius Cornelius Sulla, incensed at the Senate for trying to grant his command against Mithridates VI to Gaius Marius, used his army to lay siege to Rome and enter the city by force. Caesar later referred to this event when he was looking across the Rubicon years later, pondering the same course of action.

Caesar's early life was probably fairly easy, coming from a wealthy Patrician family and inheriting a massive estate at the age of 16 when his father died suddenly while tying his shoes. However, the social and political unrest in Rome which so frequently erupted in violence soon engulfed even this promising young man, who married another wealthy Patrician and had been named the High Priest of Jupiter. Sulla returned from Asia Minor only to fight another war at home; a purge of the Marian supporters who still opposed him. Because young Gaius was Marius' nephew, he was stripped of his inheritance and his wife's dowry, as well as his office of priest. If not for the pleading of Caesar's relatives who were loyal to Sulla, he may have even been executed. Though he was born a wealthy Patrician, he was now a man with no titles or inheritance to rely upon. So, he did what many young men without title or prospects continue to do today: he joined the army.

He won the Civic Crown, the second highest honor available to fighting men, during a campaign in Asia Minor, and after Sulla finally stepped down as Dictator and restored Consular rule, Caesar felt it safe to return to Rome, though he was little better off financially than when he had left. He entered the legal profession, having a natural gift for public speaking, and made quite a name for himself as a skillful prosecutor. He took on several high-profile cases involving corruption by retired Governors and other officials, gaining convictions most of the time and gaining the adoration of the masses, who were growing ever-weary of the corruption of their leaders.

While sailing to Rhodes to study under a skilled rhetorician, he was kidnapped by Cilician pirates and held for ransom. He continued to act the part of the superior Roman in captivity and even swore to his jailers that he would have them all crucified for this act. They believed he was joking, but after the ransom was paid, he raised a fleet of warships and hunted them down. While they were being held prisoner in Pergamum, the local Governor thought that it made more financial sense to sell them as slaves, but Caesar caught up with the traders who purchased them and saw to it that every last one of them hung on a cross. He had their throats slit beforehand, which is a kindness compared to the slow death of crucifixion. Nonetheless, the message was sent that Gaius Julius Caesar intended to crush his enemies completely, no matter who they were or what efforts were required.

When he returned to Rome he decided to take up politics and was elected Military Tribune, and over the next ten years he continued to climb the political ladder, gaining higher and higher appointments in the Senate. He made many of them nervous with his constant outward support for the memory of his uncle, the late Gaius Marius. In 63 BCE, he convinced a Tribune to prosecute an optimate Senator for a political murder which took place 37 years before. The case ended in a verdict of guilty, the crime itself being treason, and the Senator desperately appealed. During the opening of the appeal, one of the Praetors adjourned the trial temporarily, and Caesar told the Tribune to let the matter drop. His point had been made: do not mess with me.

Unfortunately, the Optimates continued to harry his every step, bringing in accusations of bribery and involvement in coup attempts. The Optimates and the Populares were kind of like political parties, but much less unified than those of today. Basically, the Optimates favored laws and policies that benefited and empowered the Patrician class and the Populares gained power and popularity by supporting policies of reform that could benefit the Plebeians. Remember that Patrician doesn't necessarily mean rich any more than Plebeian means poor. This was a kind of Republican monarchy, with the Patricians claiming descent to the original Senate as their right to rule. It might seem strange that Julius Caesar, a Patrician of the very aristocratic family Julii, would court Plebeians for power, but he was not wealthy like most Patricians. In fact, when he was appointed the Governor of Hispania Ulterior, the southern part of modern Spain, he was up to his eyeballs in debt and wasn't allowed to leave until he had satisfied it. Along came Marcus Lucinius Crassus, a copiously wealthy Senator who wanted Caesar's support against Pompey, the young upstart army commander who refused to play by traditional rules. Caesar agreed, and Crassus paid some of his debts and guaranteed the others, allowing Caesar to enter his new commission.

He secured his province well, defeating many local Celtic tribes in battle, and even earning the right to a Triumph parade back in Rome. However, he had his eye set on Consulship as well, and could only muster enough political clout to enact one of the two. Keeping his eye on the prize, he chose Consulship, and earned it through an election that was dirty on all sides.

We'll talk more about old Gaius Julius next week, but for now let's critically analyze this guy. I have to look upon Caesar with some admiration purely for his ability to rise to the top, regardless of negative personal situations. After all, he was stripped of land and titles by Sulla, and had to re-make himself if he hoped to even survive, much less gain any power. If not for his public speaking skills, we probably wouldn't even know his name. But he took what skills he had and put them to good use, using his status as a Patrician to borrow money and pull strings when he needed to.

That being said, I don't think he is quite the 'pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps' example that some historians have made him out to be. In truth, if he were a Plebeian Tribune and all of this happened to him, he would surely have been killed, not having the family connections to keep him alive. He may have been able to borrow money, but he certainly would have fallen into indentured servitude without a wealthy guarantor. He would probably have been killed or sold as a slave by the pirates who kidnapped him, since he wouldn't be worth a ransom.

Though he was an impressive individual who made the best of his situation, we should not ignore the impact of his title as a Patrician, nor the involvement and help of his family. The fact was, though you didn't need to be a Patrician to be wealthy, you did need to be one in order to be powerful, and all the reforms that the Plebeians had been fighting for politically were still coming to naught because the aristocrats in Rome did not want to really share power. Their stubbornness was their ultimate undoing, as was their use of violence to make political gains. Caesar can hardly be blamed for some of the more thuggish tactics he took later on, since he was not the first Senator to resort to violence when Democracy failed him.

Ultimately, I see Caesar as both an impressive individual and a product of his time. Next Friday, we will look closer at some of his later career and you can decide if he is truly the hero who saved Rome from corruption or the villain who killed the Republic when it no longer suited his political ends.

Pax vobiscum

Women in Rome

One of the more famous Roman myths is the story of the Sabine women. Romulus, Rome's founder, gathered outcasts from neighboring cities to Rome to populate it. Unfortunately, they were mostly men and had been exiled from the other cities for fraud, theft, and other bad behavior. If Rome was to have a future, they would need to find women and reproduce. The nearby tribe of the Sabines had plenty of women, but they were unwilling to allow their daughters to marry the scoundrels that lived in Rome. So Romulus hatched a nefarious plot.

He invited the Sabines to a massive feast just outside the city gates. Since it was an all-you-can-eat affair, they brought their children, daughters, wives, and sisters along for the party, and it carried on for some time. When the Sabine men had become drunk, the Romans seized every unwed woman they could find and carried them into the city, locking the massive gates behind them. There was war with the Sabines, and the story goes that it was the abducted women who prevented all out slaughter on both sides, agreeing to live in Rome. Since they had been raped, they were considered ruined for other men, and they knew that their best bet at survival lay in submission to their newfound Roman companions.

This story seems so repugnant to modern sensibilities that it's hard for us to imagine how any culture would place it in their oral history and public record. However, it certainly helps to shed light on the position of women in the Roman world. For the most part, women weren't permitted to hold office, own property, or choose a husband. Their family structure was such that the father or Paterfamilias held legal power over life and death for all his children. At least for the young boys there was an age of independence, but a girl might live in her father's house all the days of her life.

It was assumed that marriage would eventually lead two people into a deep romantic friendship, but first and foremost, marriage was duty. They needed to continue their family line, and they were very often betrothed from birth. As a result, marriage became a burdensome chore and many soldiers and aristocrats started putting off, visiting prostitutes and keeping female slaves and concubines instead. Augustus Caesar, desiring to preserve Roman culture despite helping to destroy its Democracy, passed a series of laws and regulations governing betrothal, marriage, and success.

He promoted soldiers who fathered many children, fearing that Rome was becoming dangerously underpopulated. He gave the best seats in the Coliseum to married men, and granted some say in property disputes to married women who bore three or more children. He penalized wealthy bachelors and single women by heavily taxing their inheritance, and made it illegal for husbands to murder adulterous wives, preferring that they divorce them instead.

Despite all these reforms, women were a far cry from men in terms of power in almost every measurable criteria. Though they could sue for divorce themselves, the courts often ruled with the father, giving him custody of their children. And if their husband was involved in a war, there was always the chance that he would return with a German or Phoenician slave girl whom he would take as a concubine. However, since the earliest Roman wives were brought to Rome in a similar fashion, it was hard to argue that things should be any different. After all, only barbarians allowed their women to have the same rights and privileges as men.

Culture Wednesday: Sparta - The Phobiopolis

Few of my friends still make the mistake of mentioning any recent 'historical' movie in my presence. I don't get invited if that's what they're going to see, and if anyone brings it up in conversation, someone else in the group is quick to silence them if I'm around. This is because I hate (HATE) pretty much all modern movies based on historical events. And that includes the most recent Greek tale of heroics and glory, 300.

But wait, before you go back to the lolcats and delete my feed, hear this: I solemnly swear not to make this entire post about how inaccurate and terrible this movie was. However, you should be aware that it will come up. This is not a movie review, just a second look at the Spartans, through the lens of reality rather than romance. Let's start with Sparta's economy.

Every Spartan male was part of the army. From age 7 or so, they would live in the barracks and learn to be ruthless, survivalist warriors. However, if everyone is a Hoplite, who grows the food? Who trades? Well, the Spartan warriors that so many have come to revere and admire were slavers, plain and simple. Sometime very near the founding of Sparta, the surrounding indigenous people, later known as Helots, were enslaved and forced to work on the farms that dotted the Spartan countryside. They wore dog-skin hats and out-numbered the Spartans about 10 to 1 by most estimates. And periodically, just to keep things interesting, the leaders of Sparta would call for a mass execution. Or some soldiers would just kill a few Helots for amusement.

Some historians have claimed that the Helots, though no doubt resistant to their captivity at first, gradually grew to believe the Spartan propaganda that they were less than human and lived only to obey. The number of Helot rebellions seems to squish this theory like a fat, slow bug, however, and I can't bring myself to imagine anyone enjoying slavery. On top of the rebellions, the Spartans themselves would always bear their spear and shield when walking around the city at night, only unbuckling their shields when they were safely within the walls of their own home. That's how seriously they took the threat of being murdered secretly by a group of Helots.

Of course, slavery was common in ancient times, and the Greeks had several different words for slave, ranging from a slave captured in battle to an indentured servant. No one was as cruel to their slaves as the Spartans, though, which has raised a number of questions dealing with their unabashed oppression.

First, why the wanton violence toward the unarmed slaves? Why did they give them annual beatings regardless of their behavior? I believe the answer is fear. The Spartans, under all their armor, chutzpah, and rigorous training were nothing more than a bunch of frightened people trying desperately to obtain some sense of control.

The day-to-day Spartan lifestyle is pretty famous, and is the one thing I will give credit to 300 for portraying correctly. When they were not campaigning, they lived very simple lives as if they always lived in camp. They wore burlap-like clothes, and even their kings lacked the jewels and pomp of their Eastern neighbors. This is why the Spartans were never bribed with money; they didn't use it. Gold was just a shiny metal to them, and they scorned the opulence of Athens and Corinth. Even today, Spartan has become an adjective for someone who lives on the barest necessities.

They craved military power, to the point of conscripting the entire free population permanently. Their army was their most valuable commodity, and it set them apart from their neighbors. To have the Spartans in your alliance was a good reason for your enemies to negotiate. Their Phalanxes were near unbreakable, and their armor was heavy and durable. However, while we interpret military strength as a reason for security, that same thought reveals the insecurity of building up a military in the first place. Why build such a massive, professional force if you have nothing to fear? It was in fear that they trained, and a pure cynical ploy to motivate the troops by the council of Elders to leave the city with no walls (claiming Sparta's fighting men are its walls).

They practiced infanticide for those babies who had deformities or were crippled from birth. This practice horrifies us today, and no one will defend a mother who has left her baby in a dumpster by saying that she is just being “spartan.” Surely they could find work for a child that was disabled, the same way that the Japanese, for example, would train their blind people in the art of massage and acupuncture? But common work is not for Spartans; it is for Helots. The Spartans are born to fight or they are killed after birth. This, too, was fear at work. Fear of weakness, fear of social change, and fear of subjugation.

So the next time you watch a movie or read a book portraying those gallant, rugged, and noble Spartans defending their homeland or joining their allies to defend Greece, don't be taken in by the romantic view that started, I believe, with the Renaissance. Remember the Helot, who lived in daily fear of his life. Remember the baby whose life was taken because he was deemed unfit to live. Remember, most of all, the founders and leaders who would take the freedom of ten times their number just to ensure their own.

Pax vobiscum

Technorati Tags: sparta, fear, slavery, oppression