Comparative image

Aims and limitations of research

Aims

The aims of this research project is to elucidate how history or historians have defined the

attributes of a great leader  as opposed to that of a tyrant, when analysing the legacy of both Julius Caesar (100BC – 44BC) and Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) both of whom have been portrayed as men who have achieved notoriety due to the manner in which they governed their respective country/empire. This essay centres ostensibly on the statement  “Julius Caesar was a man of action; Adolf Hitler a man of words, what connects these two men, given that almost 2000 years separate them”?

Limitations

The main limitation of this type of research is finding resources for study, while in the case of Adolf Hitler this is not a problem due to the vast amount of surviving writings as well as many revisionist views available, the same cannot be said of Julius Caesar. While his memoirs are available and a small number of other works are available they do not give as much in the way of factual information as we would like and so require much more attention to be able to build an accurate deduction.

Essay

Thesis statement

Julius Caesar was a man of action, Adolf Hitler was a man of words, to what extent are both men comparable given that almost 2000 years separate them?

Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler, hereafter Caesar and Hitler, were two of the most well-known leaders in history who have often been seen as tyrants, due to the nature of their ascension to power and rule. While they do share a number of traits most notably ambition, with in depth study one can clearly see it is the differences that define each individual. Added to this, both men were leaders at very different times in history and looking at this, in context, is extremely important when analysing each man. To do this, a focus on the background of the political and economic nature of each time period is required, as well as a wider reading.

Roman political situation

Politics in ancient Rome, especially in the late Republican period was a mire of personal and factional oppositions in which each senator or faction pursued their aims ruthlessly sometimes to the detriment of Rome itself added to this, “Its significant operation was confined within the membership of the Senate” (Caesar, Handford and Gardner, 1982). Though the common people were represented by the tribunes who had powers of veto and law proposal, they did not enjoy the same level of support in the senate as the senators themselves; leaving common interests woefully underrepresented. However in 133BC having been betrayed by the senate Tiberius Gracchus a young aristocrat expected, in the future, to run for the position of consul the highest office in Roman politics, shook the republic to its core becoming tribune of the people bitterly opposing the ruling body in favour of common Romans, “Tiberius Gracchus was bending the rules to the utmost, in utter disregard of the senate and Roman tradition” (Roman-empire.net, 2016), much to the chagrin of the Senate. Despite his being beaten to death in Rome by a mob inspired by opposing senators, his brother meeting the same fate not long after, their use of the post of tribune set a dangerous precedent, “The Gracchi had shown that the sovereign power of the people could be used to break the Senate’s de facto control of government” (Caesar, Handford and Gardner, 1982). This particular quote highlights why this period is so important to our understanding of the era in which Caesar governed Rome.

With the Gracchi brother’s fiasco behind them, Rome concentrated her efforts on shoring up its borders against a host of threats. A prominent Roman general Gaius Marius uncle to Julius Caesar by marriage became a central figure in these campaigns due to his extraordinary skill as a commander of the legions. First elected as consul in 108BC Marius was to be elected consul no less than 7 times, though the law forbade it. Marius was again a champion of the common people added to which the troops he commanded were loyal to him first and Rome second due to his reforms that made soldiering a means of making a livelihood, “"Contrary to law and custom he enrolled in his army poor men with no property qualifications" (Plutarch., 2012). Over the course of his consulship he would develop a bitter rivalry with a young aristocrat one Cornelius Sulla which eventually would lead to Civil war ending with Sulla taking the city from Marius by force an act that undermined the very constitutional values Rome stood for, “Of all those who eclipsed him in popular esteem he was most vexed and annoyed by Sulla, whose rise to power was due to the jealousy which the nobles felt towards Marius” (Plutarch., 2012). The age of the Warlord had arrived. Power swung between these two men until 86BC when Marius died. Both Sulla and Marius abused their power greatly using violence the cleanse Rome of their opposition but it was Sulla who showed that,  “Although the Roman Republic technically still had some fifty years to go, Sulla pretty much represents its demise. He should stand as an example to others to come that is was possible to take Rome by force and rule it, if only one was strong and ruthlessness enough to do whatever deeds were required” (Roman-empire.net, 2016). Just as Caesar and those before him saw off opposition so too did Hitler in his reclamation of the Sudetenland as we will see later.

German political situation

Following the loss of the First World War and the exile of Kaiser Wilhelm II, a new ruling body had to be appointed to lead the country and for the first time a democratic form of governance came into effect known as Weimar Republic. From the very outset the Weimar Republic was unpopular as many of the German people blamed them for surrendering to the Allies in 1918 and were associated with defeat by many who believed that Germany should have continued to fight after November 1918. Added to this, extremist politics such as communism and nationalism were extremely popular at the time due to the economic instability. Moreover, “Germans were deeply embittered by the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, signed in June 1919, which formally ended the war. The treaty called for German disarmament and huge reparation payments to the Allies” (Johndclare.net, 2016).

The terms of the Treaty of Versailles were extremely severe and included:  acceptance of war guilt, occupation of lands by a foreign power and huge amounts of reparations to be paid, “It is not hard to see why Germans were outraged. Germany lost 10% of its land, all its overseas colonies, 12.5% of its population, 16% of its coal and 48% of its iron industry. There were also the humiliating terms, which made Germany accept blame for the war, limit their armed forces and pay reparations” (Nationalarchives.gov.uk, 2016). These three particular elements of the treaty crippled the economy causing the inflation to rise dramatically, collapsing the currency making keeping up with reparations repayments impossible, which led to French and Belgian forces occupying the Ruhr in 1923. The Ruhr was the main industrial hub of Germany and its occupation added to the already dire economic pressures which in turn led to many Germans turning to the communist or Nazi parties in a bid for change. These terms would inevitably never have been accepted by Rome or Caesar, regardless of the situation an alternative would have been found to avoid such humiliation.

 Though the republic did manage to renegotiate the reparations repayments as well introducing The Dawes Plan in 1924 in bid to stabilise the economy the plan had the major flaw of being completely reliant on the USA for loans to help rebuild, a reliance that due to an event outside their control would become the downfall of the Weimar republic, “A period of relative prosperity prevailed from 1924 to 1929. This relative "golden age" was reflected in the strong support for moderate pro-Weimar political parties in the 1928 elections” (Facing History and Ourselves, 2016). Extremist groups most notably the Nazi party who had enjoyed moderate success in the past would slingshot into the spotlight following one of the most devastating  economic disasters in history The  Wall Street Crash of 1929. 

With Weimar Germany so reliant on the USA for loans The Wall Street Crash, having crippled the American economy, meant that all loans were recalled and expected to be paid in full. Germany at this time was unable to meet these demands and as a result businesses failed resulting in mass unemployment and rising popularity of the Nazi party who had gone from previously having only 12 seats in the Reichstag to having in 1930 107 seats making them the second largest party in the Reichstag giving them the momentum and popular support, “The German people were tired of the political haggling in Berlin. They were tired of misery, tired of suffering, tired of weakness” (Historyplace.com, 2016).

Always with hindsight it is easy to be blinded by our conception of what is moral or immoral based on what we deem appropriate in our time. It is however extremely important when examining history to, not only be aware, but also to account for and try to understand the social paradigm of the period before coming to any conclusions. It is now therefore necessary to address the question was Caesar a man of action? And if so what makes this statement true? To answer this it is important to investigate Caesar’s rise to power as well as his use of it when attained.

Caesar came from longstanding patrician family who claimed descent from son of Aeneas the Trojan who was in turn claimed to be a son of the goddess Venus. The education he received would, as most patrician families of time, have been focused on oratory, rhetoric, politics and military command which would help prepare him for a future in the army as well as politics. He supported the “populares” which was seen as the people’s side of politics following the footsteps of his uncle Marius. However with Sulla as dictator Caesar faced execution but due to the intervention of influential friends he was instead exiled, “Very well then, you win! Take him! But never forget that the man whom you want me to spare will one day prove the ruin of the party which you and I have so long defended. There are many Marius's in this fellow Caesar” (Suetonius and Edwards, 2000).

During this exile Caesar served in the army after which he travelled to Rhodes to further his studies, as with Sulla still in control returning to Rome was impossible. During his journey to Rhodes he was captured by pirates to whom he was forced to pay a huge ransom after which he hunted down and crucified the pirates, “He had often smilingly sworn, while still in their power, that he would soon capture and crucify them; and this is exactly what he did” (Suetonius and Edwards, 2000). Caesar then, upon hearing of the death of Sulla, returned to Rome determined to achieve political standing. His first wife had died during his exile and almost at once he entered into another politically useful marriage that ended in divorce soon after due to suspected adultery and his own knowledge that his enemies would use everything in their power to ruin him. 

After these events he proceeded to bribe his way up the political ladder incurring huge debts which eventually creditor began to call for returns on added to which many of the senators took offence to his brash actions and so he ran for the position of Pontifex Maximus or chief priest and with this title cam a semblance of immunity, the chief priest being difficult to criticise. In 60BC he was awarded a preatorship which took him to Spain a province with rebellion brewing and wasted no time quelling any and all of these with extraordinary flair for command, “At any rate, on his arrival in Spain he rapidly subdued the Lusitanian mountaineers, captured Brigantium, the capital of Galicia” (Suetonius and Edwards, 2000). Added to this the spoils of war revitalised his finances so he could pay of his debts. In 59BC he returned to Rome entering into a mutually beneficial agreement with two of the most powerful men of the times Crassus and Pompey. Achieving the post of consul he set about pushing laws through a hostile senate and while not hugely influential they showed an awareness and insight into the many issues plaguing Rome. While Hitler at first dealt with hostility, even contempt from government, he seems to have lacked the foresight to formulate solutions based on insight.

Caesar with the help of Pompey and Crassus secured for himself the governorship of the province of Gaul and while it seems unlikely that at the beginning he set out the conquer Gaul events beyond his control would set him on the path that would lead to Gaul becoming a Roman province as well as making history as the first roman to invade Britain a land shrouded in legend, “It is not likely that when Caesar entered upon his provincial command he entertained the intention of conquering the whole of Gaul; had that been so he would hardly in going first to Transalpine Gaul in 58BC have left three of his legions in northern Italy” (Caesar, Handford and Gardner, 1982).On his return the whole of Gaul rebelled and though the numbers against him were great he once again won the day. However soon after, the senate fearing his power and prestige, revoked his governorship of Gaul. One must be aware that for Caesar to disband the armies and return to private life would have meant political suicide most likely a rigged trial and death sentence. With this in mind in 49BC Caesar crossed the Rubicon to Rome marking the start of the civil war, “We may still draw back but, once across that little bridge, we shall have to fight it out” (Suetonius and Edwards, 2000).He defeated Pompey in Greece and on discovering he had fled to Egypt and sped off the Alexandria only to be greeted with new of his death and caught in the middle of a war between the ruler of Egypt and his sister Cleopatra, despite again being undermanned he resolved the war with Cleopatra gaining the throne and stayed in Egypt where the two became lovers Cleopatra baring him a son and heir. On his return to Rome he set about reforming; the constitution, the economy, the efficiency of the empire as well as pardoning his enemies. It is possible that because of his son by a monarch the Senate feared he meant to make himself king, though there are many opinions on the matter, regardless he was murdered by supposed liberators of tyranny and was stabbed 23 times in the senate on 15 March 44 BC.

Hitler was a man of words while he is certainly known for his rousing speeches, how far can it been seen that this was the extent of his strength and leadership capabilities? Was there more to the man than simply oratory?

Hitler was born in Austria in 1889 from an early age he developed a love of art and German nationalism, after leaving home he applied to the academy of fine art twice and was rejected both times after which he became homeless and embittered. Upon the outbreak of WW1 he applied to serve in German army where he was injured after which he was decorated for his bravery with Iron Cross First Class and the Black Wound Badge. He was shocked by Germanys surrender and believed they had been betrayed by civilian leaders and Marxists. Hitler however is not seen taking an active role in conflict after this contrary to Caesar who is known to have lead by example.

After WW I, “Hitler returned to Munich continuing to work for the military as an intelligence officer. While monitoring the activities of the German Workers’ Party (DAP), Hitler adopted many of the anti-Semitic, nationalist and anti-Marxist ideas of DAP founder Anton Drexler. Drexler invited Hitler to join the DAP, which he did in 1919” (Biography.com, 2016). He became a prominent member in the party being instrumental in organising the Munich putsch of 1923, in the hope of fostering revolution; however three days later he was arrested for high treason serving one year in prison. On his release, and due partly to the economic difficulties facing Germany at the time, Hitler was able to easily capitalise on the other party’s apparent weakness. He quickly utilised this to gain the position of chancellor which he used to legally make himself dictator, “Hitler used his position as chancellor to form a de facto legal dictatorship” (Lee, 1998). Once dictator he suppressed and punished not only military opposition but political also exemplified by the night of the long knives.

He promoted above all racial hygiene; he criminalised Jews, homosexuals and those with disabilities, “A main Nazi concept was the notion of racial hygiene. New laws banned marriage between non-Jewish and Jewish Germans and deprived "non-Aryans" of the benefits of German citizenship” (Biography.com, 2016).He, through diplomacy, regained the Sudetenland which only spurred him on to assert dominance in Europe beginning with the invasion Poland in 1938.This led France and Britain to declare war, in 1940 he invaded Scandinavia, France the Netherland and Belgium and bombed Britain in preparation for invasion. Germany signed the Axis alliance with Italy and Japan to deter the USA from protecting Britain.

 In 1941 he violated the Non Aggression Pact with Joseph Stalin and invaded Russia making swift progress until the Germans were repulsed in Moscow. Japan then attacked Pearl harbour drawing the USA into the war and Hitler now faced the world’s largest empire Britain, the words wealthiest country USA and the world’s largest army Russia. Caesar was always careful not to overextend himself most especially in war time Hitler lacked the ability to control himself all too often.

With the odds stacked against him and many military decisions falling to him Hitler became increasingly erratic in his decisions and his health suffered, “Instead functioning as a balancing element in the government, Hitler disrupted the conduct of affairs by continually acting on sudden impulses, each one different, and partly by delaying decisions on current matters” (Williamson, 1989). Germany suffered consecutive defeats in Stalingrad, Kursk and the Allies had landed in France. Knowing the war was lost and not wanting to be taken by the enemy Hitler committed suicide with his wife on April 30^th 1945. Berlin fell on May 2^nd and five days later Germany surrendered unconditionally to the allies. Hitler is deemed responsible for; starting a world war, causing devastation across Europe as well as the deaths of an estimated 40million people,” His policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale and resulted in the death of an estimated 40 million people, including about 27 million in the Soviet Union” (Biography.com, 2016).

While both men shared what could be perceived as an unhealthy appetite for power, exemplified by their single-minded ruthlessness to achieve it, they also shared a desire to affect change Caesar in Rome and Hitler in Germany. However whether the level of this shared trait is comparable is up for debate. Equally Caesar and Hitler became dictators making them sole rulers but what is most interesting is that they both achieved these positions by supporting the common people’s side in politics. The final similarity between the two men is that both certainly had expansionist ideas and acted upon them

Given the similarities one could be forgiven for assuming the difference between them would not overshadow this however, nothing could be further from the truth. While Hitler certainly improved the economy while in power it was essentially on the back of a manufacturing industry preparing for war and in all probability couldn’t last, “Women and political opponents were not counted in the unemployment figures, for example; nor were German Jews, many of whom had been banned from their occupations, another factor in German economic growth was re-armament” (Nazi Germany, 2012). Added to this he dismantled the government and became sole ruler following his own agenda throughout his rule.

 In comparison Caesar ,while becoming dictator himself, the importance of remembering he was voted dictator for life cannot be understated. While in power Caesar set about reforming a huge number of issue affecting Rome as a whole including; enlarging the senate, streamlining local government, “Caesars relationship with the Senate do not suggest that he contemplated scrapping the machinery of the Republic. He consulted it constantly on the minutest details of public business” (Caesar, Handford and Gardner, 1982). Added to this he introduced; the creation of a police force, draining the local marshes to create local farmland, , Granted citizenship and all its benefits to doctors and teachers, Re-regulating the free distribution of grain, which halved the total number of people eating at state expense, Abolishing the tax system at that time, which was exploited by corrupted tax collectors. Added to this he undertook great public works and probably the most well know of his innovation is the revision the calendar of which western society still uses today.

To conclude it is clear that however we define a leader comparing two is, at best extremely difficult and worst presents a skewed view of history, as in essence many are simply not comparable. It is doubtful Caesar would appreciate the comparison, though Hitler perhaps would be appreciative. While Hitler was certainly a skilled orator and some would argue had a great charisma his lack of participation in deciding policy does suggest that words were his personal weapons of choice. Caesar on the other hand, though extremely skilled in the art of oration, was also a tactician politician and it could be stated a reformist, “It has been said that Caesar’s rule marks the move from the conception of the empire as a rich field for exploitation by the Romans, and especially the Roman ruling classes, to that of an empire as a community, to which the Roman government had responsibilities” (Caesar, Handford and Gardner, 1982). Caesar shows Niccolo Machiavelli’s quote to be true, “Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great” (Machiavelli, 2010)

Bibliography

Bibliography

Facing History and Ourselves. (2016). 1929: A Turning Point During the Weimar Republic. [online] Available at: https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/1929-turning-point [Accessed 27 May 2016].

Biography.com. (2016). [online] Available at: http://www.biography.com/people/adolf-hitler-9340144#early-years [Accessed 27 May 2016]

Arena, V. (2012). Libertas and the practice of politics in the late Roman Republic. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Caesar, J., Handford, S. and Gardner, J. (1982). The conquest of Gaul. London: Penguin Books.

Encyclopedia Britannica. (2016). Gaius Marius | Roman general. [online] Available at: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Gaius-Marius [Accessed 25 May 2016].

Lee, S. (1998). Hitler and Nazi Germany. London: Routledge.

Machiavelli, N. (2010). The Prince. Chichester, West Sussex: Capstone Pub.

Nazi Germany. (2012). Nazi economic recovery. [online] Available at: http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/nazi-economic-recovery/ [Accessed 27 May 2016].

Penelope.uchicago.edu. (2016). Plutarch • Life of Marius. [online] Available at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Marius*.html [Accessed 27 May 2016].

Plutarch., (2012). Parallel lives. [Lanham, Maryland?]: Start Publishing LLC.

Suetonius, and Edwards, C. (2000). Lives of the Caesars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Historyplace.com. (2016). The History Place - Rise of Hitler: Great Depression Begins. [online] Available at: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/begins.htm [Accessed 26 May 2016].

Roman-empire.net. (2016). The Late Republic. [online] Available at: http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/laterep-index.html [Accessed 25 May 2016].

Nationalarchives.gov.uk. (2016). The National Archives Learning Curve | The Great War | Making peace | Reaction to the Treaty of Versailles | Background. [online] Available at: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g5/cs2/background.htm#5 [Accessed 27 May 2016].

Johndclare.net. (2016). The Treaty of Versailles. [online] Available at: http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar1_Redruth.htm [Accessed 25 May 2016].

Williamson, D. (1989). The Third Reich. New York: Bookwright Press.

Addendum

Addendum

Objectives

The objective of this study will be to use a range of primary and secondary sources to gather accurate information in order to gain a clearer picture of the men themselves as well as their motivations, how they governed and their legacies. Primary sources such as; Caesar – The Conquest of Gaul (The Gallic Wars), Caesar – The Civil War, Suetonius – The Twelve Caesars, Plutarch – The Life of Caesar, Plutarch – Parallel lives, as well as secondary source including; Aristotle A. Kallis – Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War, John laver – Nazi Germany, Stephen J. Lee – Hitler and Nazi Germany, will be used to gain an insight into the subject matter. Primary sources while often biased often give a much clearer idea of the timeframe of study and are often first-hand accounts which are invaluable to us as historians. Secondary research is also extremely useful as it gives different perspectives on research allowing scholars to have a wider and more objective view on past events. The Gallic Wars, mentioned earlier, by Julius Caesar is a perfect example of primary research given that it is the only surviving first-hand account of Caesars exploits at the time.

Methodology

The research will be both historical and archival which will require understanding the past through the examination and interpretation of evidence in the form of texts, physical remains of historic sites, recorded data and pictures. Once found the evidence will be analyzed to determine content validity and biases and corroborated with further evidence to develop an interpretation of past events that holds some significance for the present. Both types of research will help to support my thesis statement by drawing on both primary and secondary sources to build a solid foundation of accurate information. Added to this ethnographic research will give an understanding of the differences in: culture, economic climate, military leadership, policies and legacies left behind.