Caesar by Adrian Goldsworthy (Review)
Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy is part two of three in my self-developed course on famous generals. George Marshall: Defender of the Republic by David L. Roll spurred me to learn more about Douglas MacArthur through the esteemed biography, American Caesar by William Manchester. Yet the title of Manchester’s book made me appreciate how little I knew about Julius Caesar, so this biography jumped up my reading list.
I’m glad I read Caesar, yet the book once again reminded me that I favor biographies from the past 300-400 years rather than ancient history. This preference extends from the wider range of source texts and details that tend to be included. Despite the limitation of extant writing, there is still a trove of insight researched captured by Dr. Goldsworthy. Early in his book, Goldsworthy summarized Caesar by referencing an assessment of Napoleon Bonaparte by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:
“[Napoleon] was a wonderful man—perhaps the most wonderful man who ever lived. What strikes me is the lack of finality in his character. When you make up your mind that he is a complete villain, you come on some noble trait, and then your admiration of this is lost in some act of incredible meanness…”
Goldsworthy sees the same duality in Julius Caesar, and he backed it as he developed the story of the man. The story moved at a healthy clip, and I enjoyed understanding how Caesar evolved and how—eventually—his very name became the eponymous title of honor for Rome’s future leaders. Caesar was indeed a colossus, and it is understandable why his reputation has remained so significant 2,000 years later.
Because of Caesar’s significance, I recommend Dr. Goldsworthy’s book, which weaves an enjoyable narrative about an interesting and influential man. Caesar also lends great insight into Rome as a republic and Rome as a dictatorship, particularly the conditions that led to its transformation. Julius Caesar can easily be seen as an inevitable man of destiny, but Goldsworthy shows how many of Caesar’s decisions could easily have gone astray and how similar decisions by Caesar’s contemporaries led to far worse outcomes. The result is an excellent story about a historical figure worth knowing.
The following thoughts are what I found most interesting while reading Caesar.
Usually, I enjoy childhood portions of biographies because it is an aspect seldom covered with great detail in general history books. There is little for a concrete record of Caesar’s childhood, yet Goldsworthy gave a helpful background on the conditions and culture of Caesar’s youth. This portion of the book includes a degree of speculation, but it was always clear and logically built by explaining the degree reliability for the extant sources. One example early in the book (post-childhood) where Goldsworthy showed historical trends to help understand Caesar was his proclivity for seducing the wives of senators. Goldsworthy explained the various possibilities for Caesar’s habit including:
The educated nature of aristocratic women making them interesting in Caesar’s eyes;
The availability of the women due to senatorial duties across the empire;
The power prospect of cuckolding the men whom he daily encountered in his social and power circles.
Examples like those listed above reflect a recorded history of why power players at the time were generally having affairs. Yet the specific reasons for Caesar participating are not necessarily recorded by history. Still, the context provides better understanding of Caesar’s time if not the man himself.
It was helpful hearing Caesar’s place in the social and power strata as he reached his 30s. Goldsworthy explained that Caesar was certainly an up-and-coming leader, but there were plenty of those among his peers. It wasn’t until Caesar became Aedile (a Roman magistrate) when he really began his ascent. As Aedile, Caesar was in charge of entertainment, which gave him great insight into the power of the people’s favor. Further, Caesar spent generously during this magistrate position, which won him fame and favor. This spending was an investment I’m his own political future. Others did the same, and there was significant risk in personal financial ruin. It was a tightrope to secure credit to fund games and leveraging that favor to secure power positions. If the creditors came calling before a Roman secured adequate power, the risk was complete ruin. Caesar’s service as Aedile was close in time to Spartacus’s rebellion and there was a well-founded fear of revolution. This backdrop gave Caesar understanding about wielding the power of the masses.
One of the individuals I knew nothing about beyond his name was Marcus Licinius Crassus. Either he or Pompey the Great held the most wealth in Caesar’s day. Crassus built his fortune in land and wielded tremendous political power. I similarly learned more about Pompey and his duality as both ally and rival of Caesar. Other famous names who I learned or relearned about include Catiline, who attempted to overthrow Rome. Goldsworthy juxtaposed Catiline and Julius Caesar throughout the book. Cato the Younger is someone whose writings I have encountered both in my western-civ and political-science classes, but I did not know much about the person. Cato opposed Caesar and his quest for power, which explains why Cato’s writings on republics remain today.
When the Senate debated what to do with the rebels who supported Catiline, here is the start of Caesar’s speech, “[I seek] to be influenced neither by hatred, affection, anger, nor pity…[because such feelings obstruct what is right. If passion controls the mind] it becomes its tyrant, and reason is powerless.” Such a sentiment is nearly unimaginable in politics today. Anger and passion rule as a tyrant.
Many historians consider 60 B.C. as the year when the republic’s cancer became terminal. Caesar was 40 and returning from his governorship in Spain (Andalusia and modern Portugal). Caesar declined his earned triumph, so he could return to Rome by the deadline to run for proconsul.
Caesar led an aggressive term as proconsul in which he passed significant legislation on behalf of the triumvirate: Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus. Once his tenure as proconsul ended, he traveled to Gaul and only had two additional years of his life in which he was not involved with major warfare. Goldsworthy explained that it was not until Napoleon that history records an individual with a larger number of pitches battles (somewhere between 30-50). He noted that Hannibal fought more major battles, but it is unlikely he fought more total.
Goldsworthy offered insight into Caesar’s gifts as a writer. Unlike Pompey who hired a writer to chronicle his campaigns, Caesar was his own pressman. The great orator, Cicero, stated that all reasonable men would be put off from writing because Caesar had set the standard to an unmatchable level. Caesar wrote not just for posterity but to win over peers to his greatness. Relatedly, much of what we know about Caesar comes from his military commentaries. The extant documentation often appears derived from Caesar’s writing, so there is a possibility of positive spin. Yet the commentaries also include his defeats, and there was a constant check on deceit because his writing served as a report to the Roman Senate, and there were plenty of peers who could refute any deception.
Caesar made his mark on his troops by never asking of them what he would not do himself. This surprised his men on multiple fronts, not least of which was his slight build and history of seizures. Caesar did not let his feebleness prevent physical endurance while training with and leading his troops.
One reason I wanted to know more about Julius Caesar was to better understand the phrase, “crossing the Rubicon.” For years, seeing a Jeep Rubicon has prompted the thought, “I really don’t know enough about why Caesar crossing the river was so momentous.” It is something I likely knew back when Max Girres taught ancient history, but seventh grade was a long time ago. For those share my curiosity about the Rubicon yet are uninterested in a full Julius Caesar biography, here is how Professor Jeffrey Beneker summarizes what happened in his article The Crossing of the Rubicon and the Outbreak of Civil War in Cicero, Lucan, Plutarch, and Suetonius:” “In January 49 B.C. [After Caesar’s governorship in Gaul, Caesar defied the Roman Senate and led his army south across the Rubicon…In doing so, he ignited a civil war that brought about the destruction of Pompey, his chief political rival, and secured his complete, if temporary, domination of the republican government.” That’s a succinct summary of why “crossing the Rubicon” still means “the point of no return.”
Rome’s civil war seems somewhat absurd in hindsight. Goldsworthy noted there were already strains on the republic before Pompey and Caesar’s personal jealousy tore the nation apart. Yet is also highlights how fragile republics are. It is hard to say whether President Obama’s mocking of Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner led to the latter eventually becoming president. But the biter cacophony that grew from that exchange while the two men were in office looks similarly small to the Pompey-Caesar rivalry tearing apart the ancient republic. As Goldsworthy put it, “no Roman senator liked to see another man excelling him in glory and significance.” The poet, Lucan, later wrote, “Caesar could no longer endure a superior, nor Pompey an equal.” The absence of a culture maintaining humility has far-reaching effects.
Rome’s citizenry was generally indifferent and unaware of the nation’s civil war. The public’s disinterest reminded me of [Barbara] Tuchman’s Law:
Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times. After absorbing the news of today, one expects to face a world consisting entirely of strikes, crimes, power failures, broken water mains, stalled trains, school shutdowns, muggers, drug addicts, neo-Nazis, and rapists. The fact is that one can come home in the evening—on a lucky day—without having encountered more than one or two of these phenomena. This has led me to formulate Tuchman's Law, as follows: "The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold" (or any figure the reader would care to supply).
When the state of our country seems particularly dire, I try to better assess how much of the angst relates to the news and commentators versus the general sentiment of the citizenry.
Early in the book, Goldsworthy noted that Roman children received an education that focused on “dignitas, pietas, and virtus.” Goldsworthy emphasized that the English derivatives: “dignity, piety, and virtue” do not carry the same weight as the original terms. Dignitas focused on responsibility for men to command respect and honor. Goldsworthy explained this was of value for all Roman citizens, but particularly the aristocracy. Pietas focused on respect for the gods, family, parents, laws, and traditions—all with a sense of duty. Virtus had a military focus and an expectation of physical bravery, “Confidence, moral courage, and the skills required by both soldier and commander.” I considered these cultural foundations when thinking about how duty shaped Caesar. Julius Caesar certainly desired power and glory but there was a binding principle to dignitas, pietas, and virtus, which included a duty to personify Roman characteristics. Duty led Caesar to the path he took. It similarly led the men who assassinated Caesar to act.
Cultural norms have a prevailing effect on our conduct whether we are aware of it or not. In another book I just read, Dynamics of Spiritual Life, the author noted how American virtues of “ambition, enterprise, freedom, [and] self-respect” can devolve into traits of “covetousness, gluttony, egocentric libertarianism, and pride, all of which have been selectively bread into our culture.” It is easy to distort what is good into justification for that which is bad. Caesar’s life is a good example of this effect.
As stated above, I tend to prefer more recent history for my reading, but Caesar: Life of a Colossus is an excellent biography that offers plenty of intrigue and context for ancient Rome. Goldsworthy is both readable and informative, which is just what I wanted to begin understanding more of who Julius Caesar was and why his reputation remains today.
