I've noticed especially over the course of this sabbatical that I have a genuine interest in history. To me a time machine where one could go back and see how people actually lived at different points (medieval Indian history, Indus Valley, Mohenjodaro, Troy, Rome to name a few) would be one of the coolest things. Of late I've read a few historical books. Here's some reflections from 2 of them,
Caesar and
The October Horse.
These are the last two books of
Colleen McCullough's (henceforth CMC) epic series about Republican Rome. Okay some historical background but don't quote me on it. The Greeks came first with their Aristotle, Socrates, Hippocrates and the others. I haven't read that much about the Greeks, but generally they are revered as the fountainhead of Western civilization. However they never managed to unite and run a real nation-state, and at some point the Romans overtook them. I believe after the Roman ascendancy, the Greeks existed in a benign colonial subjugation where they were mostly left alone. In Rome's history there was a period of time when Rome was republican -- meaning that it was not ruled by a king. The details are a little complicated and I don't understand them too well myself. There were classes of people with different levels of power. The lowest was slaves, the next was (what CMC calls)the 'Head Count', the landless poor who did not have any voting privileges, then landed people with a vote and so on. At the top of the hierarchy was the Senate composed of the most distinguished and powerful of Romans and later another institution the 'Tribune of the Plebians' which helped to loosen the stranglehold that the patricians (those of high birth) had on the power through the Senate. Decisions were taken more or less democratically after discussion in the Senate or the Tribune.
There are several fascinating aspects to the whole Roman thing. One was how come what was basically a single city managed to establish its pre-eminence over so much of the world. Romans always identified with Rome, there was no dilution of the Roman identity to a broader one such as Italy. How come a single city could control so much power ? One reason was that their military machine was unparalleled in their time and they controlled or conquered vast portions of Europe, Africa and Asia. The other was their relationship with the rest of Italy, which occupied a subjugated position to Rome in the earlier days and over time became more and more integrated, with Italians getting access to Roman citizenship. The Roman Senate in CMC's books is a fascinating organization. Rhetoric plays an important part in its working, with great speakers (Cicero was one of them) being able to sway arguments in their favor irrespective of the merit of their position. This seems to have been kind of accepted -- great speakers were honoured for being such and their ability to sway arguments was not seen in a negative way.
The two books mentioned follow the course of Roman history during Julius Caesar's time. In CMC's writing he comes across as way way larger than life. As one of the truly great kings or people of any country anywhere. He was multifaceted, an adminstrator, general and man of letters. His great military achievement was bringing present day France under Rome and he even invaded England (the river 'Tamesi' is mentioned). The French united (after a fashion) under a new leader Vercingetorix but could not match the Roman military machine under its greatest general. Vercingetorix occupies pride of place in French history books for his role in that resistance. Later Caesar fathered a child with Cleopatra, Pharoah of Egypt, a child who was later killed by Octavius Caesar. Octavius Caesar is Caesars' relative and adopted son and a fascinating character. The October Horse is the last book in the series and covers the asassination of Caesar, familiar territory from Shakespeare. However Shakespeare's version differed from historical fact in many places, and in other places the facts lend themselves to various interpretations. I am trusting CMC's historical reconstruction here, though she admits that a lot of her work is from an imaginative though not fanciful recreation of the facts. Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius to give him his actual name) is a talented soldier but otherwise a person without any sophistication or appreciation for Roman values. In the book he actually was very ambigious about Caesar (Caesar's preeminence left him little power) and was to a small extent complicit in the assasination. However seeing the popular winds after the assasination he teamed up with Octavius Caesar (a mutual detestation existed between the two) to hunt down the assasins including of course Brutus ('and Brutus is an honourable man'). Marcus Junius Brutus is a weak, money-loving character who was promised Caesar's daughter in marriage, whom he adored. A promise that was subsequently broken, and a heartbreak that he did not quite recover from. The assasination scene itself is tremendously intense in the book -- one of the high points. Octavius and Antony fell out and had a final decisive naval battle with Octavius and his loyal lieutnant Agrippa on one side and Antony and Cleopatra on the other. Octavius won, Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide and Octavius murdered Cesarion, Cleopatra's child by Caesar. Octavius went on to become unofficial emperor of Rome, signalling the end of the Roman republic.
I've only touched on some points of a tremendously fascinating story. The books are huge and painfully detailed, so an appropriate strategy for dealing with them is to skip over large swathes of the book when they meander (I usually read perhaps 60-70% of the books). BTW, CMC is an accomplished author with several other striking books to her credit -- one that I enjoyed a lot is called
TimSome trivia: atleast two phrases in the English language owe their origin to ancient Rome:
all roads lead to Rome and
crossing the Rubicon. The first one I don't know a specific reason for. I guess it relates to what I said about Rome being the defacto capital of the (western and a good portion of the rest) world. Also the Romans were great road builders and there was a spider web of roads radiating out of Rome in all directions (via Saleria, via Valeria, Via Domitia, via Appia ..). No ring roads though :-). The other phrase has a very definite origin. After his campaign in Gaul, Caesar was in danger of getting convicted of treason by influential groups in the Senate who were jealous of him or alarmed at his pre-eminence and disdain for the Senatorial procedure. Caesar decided after much agonizing that the only solution was to march on Rome with his armies and take over as Dictator. Given the all-consuming position that Rome had in the mind of Romans, it was an unthinkable thing to do for a honourable Roman to do(although it happened a few times). Crossing the Rubicon river into Italy to begin his march on Rome was an irrevocable step that changed the course of Roman history and ultimately lead to the fall of the Republic. the
Laxman Rekha in Indian mythology is so strikingly similar in meaning.
