Reflecting on history’s warriors
MY THOUGHTS recently turned to historical figures who made their mark as militarists, conquerors and rulers. What these figures have in common is that they were ruthless and ambitious, yet brought much-needed reforms to areas they conquered.
The first of these personages I call to mind is Julius Caesar, who ruled Rome from 49 to 44 BC. He is described as one of the great military leaders of all time. He was a brilliant military strategist, who helped make Rome the centre of an empire that stretched across Europe. But not only was Caesar an accomplished militarist, he was also an orator, politician and writer of note.
Caesar was a power-hungry politician. He was also astute and knew that he needed a loyal army as well as military fame to gain more power. He was a military strategist of genius. In 58BC he began a campaign to conquer Gaul (France). He conquered all the territory east of the Rhine and defeated the Germans in Gaul, before invading Britain in 55 and 54BC.
Although he enjoyed much support from the people, there were fears that he was growing too powerful. Opposition to his growing power came in the form of Pompey, who went into an alliance with some conservatives, demanding that Caesar surrender his army, which he had no intention of doing.
He crossed the Rubicon River with 5 000 men. The Rubicon separated Caesar’s provinces from Italy. This act of aggression provoked a civil war, but Caesar was victorious. He conquered Italy and became the undisputed master of the Roman world. The people honoured Caesar by making him dictator for 10 years. Later, he was made dictator for life. Mark Anthony offered Caesar the crown of king, but Caesar refused it.
Still, there were those who were suspicious of Caesar and under the leadership of Brutus and Cassius, a group of aristocrats plotted to kill him. On March 15 – the Ides of March – Caesar was stabbed to death as he entered a meeting of the Senate.
This tale of treachery and corruption must not let us underestimate the importance of Caesar’s reforms. To begin with, he stopped dishonest practices in the Roman and provincial governments. He revised the calendar and cleared the way for eliminating confusions that existed for hundreds of years. He replaced dishonest governors with honest ones, and granted Roman citizenship to many in the conquered provinces.
Another historical figure of note is Cleopatra, who lived from 69 to 30BC. Often, when people think of Cleopatra, they think of an amazingly beautiful woman. A source indicates that she was, in fact, not a beauty of note but that she was intelligent, witty and ambitious. Upon her father’s death, Cleopatra became queen in 51BC. Her brother, Ptolemy XII, 10 years old at the time, was made joint-ruler of Alexandria.
But in 49BC, Ptolemy’s guardians seized power from him and dethroned Cleopatra. In 48BC, Caesar came to Alexandra, met Cleopatra and fell in love with her. A brief civil war followed, during which Ptolemy was defeated and drowned while trying to escape. Ptolemy XIII then ascended the throne with Cleopatra. In 46BC, Cleopatra went to Rome and stayed with Caesar until his death in 44BC. She returned to Rome, had Ptolemy XIII put to death and her son by Caesar ruled Egypt as Ptolemy XIV.
In 41BC, Cleopatra met Mark Anthony, who fell in love with her. Much has been said and written about their love affair, but I focus on their ambitions. Anthony wanted to be sole ruler of Rome, and desired the wealth of Egypt to sustain this ambition. But Cleopatra wanted to bring Egypt into the empire as a partner, rather than as a conquered province.
She first led Anthony to believe she had taken her own life, whereupon he committed suicide. She then tried to influence the ruler, Octavian, to succumb to her spell, but to no avail. She had little choice. She could go on living and endure whatever punishment or humiliation Octavian wanted to mete out to her.
She preferred to take her own life rather than be carried off to Rome where Octavian could humiliate her by parading her before the people. It is commonly thought that she placed an asp, an Egyptian cobra, on her arm and allowed it to bite her.
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) is the next historical figure I look at. He was a military genius; some sources say the greatest military genius of his time. For about 20 years many European nations fought him. He defeated one foe after another, until he ruled an area that covered most of western and central Europe and appeared to be invincible.
It is said that his mother encouraged him and helped him to achieve the height of his power. In 1802, the French people had voted Napoleon first consul for life, but he was less than satisfied with this honour. He gradually began to whittle away all powers of the government that did not fall under his control. This helped him to strengthen his own authority.
In May 1804, Napoleon was voted emperor. At the coronation ceremony, which was held at Notre Dame Cathedral on December 2, he snatched the crown from the pontiff ’s hands and placed it on his own head. Some say this was to show that he had personally won the right to wear it, while others say he did not think anyone was worthy of crowning him emperor.
Despite his many military exchanges, Napoleon was not defeated by an army of human beings. His army was defeated by hunger and the piercing cold. This happened during Napoleon’s Russian campaign.
In 1812, Napoleon’s army marched eastwards. The Russians retreated and systematically destroyed everything of value as they did so. When Napoleon reached Moscow he found the city deserted, with just about nothing for his troops to eat. He was forced to retreat and of the 600 000 people who made up Napoleon’s troops, over 500 000 were captured, deserted or died of illness.
Closer to home, a military strategist of great note is Shaka Zulu, born around 1787, and died on September 22, 1828 in Stanger, Natal. During his reign more than 100 chiefdoms were brought together in a Zulu kingdom. The Zulu manner of warfare was unique for its time. The long-handled throwing spear made way for a short-handled stabbing spear. The fighter would be required to move right up to his enemy and attack.
The formation most generally used was a crescent-shaped one. There would be a number of regiments several ranks deep that would form a dense body known as the chest. On each side a regiment would move forwards forming the horns. The horns curved inwards, surrounding the enemy, while the main body advanced, killing all those who could not break through the surrounding lines.
This was a formidable and effective means of attack.
While I would prefer there to be no warfare, I cannot but admire the bravery of the combatants who engaged in face-to-face combat.
It is reported that during Shaka’s lifetime there were no conflicts between whites and the Zulus. Shaka treated whites favourably and ceded them land. He also permitted white traders to build a settlement at Port Natal. He was curious about their technological developments and was anxious to learn more about warfare.
He was especially interested in the culture they represented and was keenly alert to the advantages that trade would bring him. It would appear that Shaka had an enquiring mind that did not simply take things at face value.
Shaka’s story is a good one of how co-operation can lead to multiple benefits. If we can remember that not this, nor any other land in the world, was created for the sole use of one person or one set of persons, then we can move both locally and globally, towards true and lasting reconciliation.