There are many similarities between Stalin and Mussolini. These similarities can be seen in their authoritarian rule, marked by totalitarianism, and repression. The authoritarian control of all aspects of life and the use of propaganda to stay in power were shared characteristics of the regimes led by both Benito Mussolini and Josef Stalin. Nonetheless, Mussolini advocated fascism while Stalin championed communism, demonstrating a clear ideological divide between the two.
Stalin expanded the Soviet Union’s military for economic gain rather than social purposes, whereas Mussolini romanticized war and aspired to restore Italy to the grandeur of the Roman Empire. In spite of their differences, both leaders were effective in getting their people to where they needed to be. This may have given the impression that their approaches were similar.
Both Were Committed to Manipulation and Expansion
Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini, two of World War II‘s most infamous figures, were also among the most ruthless tyrants in human history. They are known for the devastation they wreaked on their people and other nations throughout the war. When it comes to the similarities between Stalin and Mussolini, it’s hardly unexpected that these two tyrants have a lot in common. Stalin and Mussolini both took advantage of the instability and public unrest in the years after World War I to further their authoritarian agendas and seize power. Stalin and Mussolini were both opponents of liberalism who supported authoritarian regimes. In spite of their vast ideological differences, these two leaders shared a commitment to totalitarian rule and manipulation, a belief in the need to silence critics, and a preference for authoritarian methods of maintaining control.
Under Stalin’s leadership, the arts were utilized as a means to gain support and admiration from the public. In contrast, Mussolini employed aggressive propaganda tactics, including suppressing freedom of speech and the press, to bolster his regime. Although both nations saw an expansion of their military forces, the motivations behind this growth were vastly different. In Italy, war was celebrated and elevated as a means to restore the country’s former grandeur, akin to the glory days of the Roman Empire. Conversely, the Soviet Union’s military expansion was primarily driven by economic considerations rather than societal ones.
Parallels in Stalin’s and Mussolini’s Rise to Power
Image: History.com
Stalin and Mussolini both came to power by manipulating the political system and using “legal” means instead of using military force to gain control of their countries. Both of their supporters spent years gradually weakening democratic institutions while operating more or less “legally”, eventually eliminating them altogether.
Mussolini, who initially was a radical activist of socialist ideologies, went on to establish extreme right-wing organizations in 1919 with the backing of the upper class, which helped him to attain power in 1922. Stalin, who was the son of a Georgian farmer, also began his career as a student radical before rising to the position of Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1922. He deported Leon Trotsky from the government in 1925 and suppressed the left-wing opposition in 1928.
Stalin ascended to power in the Soviet Union in 1934 by removing whatever opposition he could through a combination of show trials and murder. Similarly, during Mussolini’s rise to power, his armed fascist squads roamed the nation from 1920 to 1922 murdering an estimated 2,000 political opponents.
After taking power, Stalin and Mussolini eliminated any remaining political opposition to strengthen their hold on power. The two leaders used various tactics such as propaganda and manipulation to gain support and maintain control. Il Popolo d’Italia (“The People of Italy”), a journal formed by Benito Mussolini in 1914, was Mussolini’s primary vehicle of propaganda. It preached militarism and irredentism. Mussolini shut down the opposition media and rallied after the election. To promote his fascist ideology of a better standard of living, he even used the quote, “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.”
In a similar vein, Stalin used his bureaucracy to dictate who could write about what and how they might represent things. Established first in 1918, Stalin used the Pravda (“Truth” in Russian) newspaper as his official propaganda tool. Under Stalin, Russia’s arts and popular culture took an upbeat stance on the country’s social climate. In the 1930s, Stalin’s phrase, “Living has become better, comrades. Living has become happier,” was widely used in the press, on placards, and in speeches for manipulation.
Similarities in Mussolini’s and Stalin’s Political Ideologies
Stalin on a poster reading “Glory to the Great Stalin,” 1938. Image: Wikimedia.
Mussolini was a fascist, whereas Stalin was a communist and they had radically different political perspectives. However, authoritarianism and militarism were essential tenets of both Mussolini’s fascism and Stalin’s interpretation of communism.
Both Mussolini’s and Stalin’s political ideologies began as populist movements before becoming one-man dictatorships. Individualism appears to be the ideology that Mussolini and Stalin detested the most in order to maintain power. The two leaders often talked harshly about it and consistently relegated the individuals and their efforts to the background in order to highlight the importance of communal state elements.
Especially during their dictatorships, both Mussolini and Stalin thought democracy was a hopeless political structure. They respectively believed that free speech and political parties were illusions and that fascism or communism would arrange for society to submit to state authority.
Stalin and Mussolini had the same overarching goal: To unite the planet under their absolute control. The two rulers had aspirations of becoming global superpowers and expanding their empires to unprecedented levels of influence and power.
Mussolini envisioned reestablishing the Roman Empire in Italy, with himself at the helm as “Caesar.” On the other extreme, we had Stalin, who referred to himself as “Koba.” Koba was a vindictive figure who embodied the values of a Georgian knight.
Stalin and Mussolini were both ambitious leaders who sought to spread their political ideologies throughout the globe. Mussolini directed Italian attacks on Libya, Somalia, Albania, and Greece. It was also Stalin’s intention to extend Soviet territory first into Eastern Europe.
Resemblances of Their Totalitarian Regimes
Benito Mussolini used Palazzo Venezia as his residence during his reign. Image: Underwood & Underwood/CORBIS.
Besides their own political parties, both Stalin and Mussolini outlawed all other political parties. After eliminating all political opposition through the use of his secret police and prohibiting strikes by workers, Mussolini established a one-party dictatorship. Stalin also created a one-party totalitarian police state by enforcing a ban on all other party factions to suppress political dissent.
Strikes and other forms of worker protests were criminalized during Mussolini’s and Stalin’s regimes. Strikes were especially limited to a minimum under Stalin’s regime. Stalin would have had none of the labor unions oppose them. The two dictators actively sought to stifle and punish dissenting opinions.
Benito Mussolini built a strong fascist state on the strength of his personality. To suppress anti-fascism, he formed a political police squad, the OVRA (Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism). Just like Mussolini, Joseph Stalin’s police squad, the NKVD (the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs), played a significant role in suppressing anti-communism and carrying out the Great Purge. Both police agencies managed to penetrate deeply into the everyday lives of the Italian and Soviet people, respectively.
To define their totalitarian regimes, both Mussolini and Stalin did not hesitate to come up with various terms and slogans. Mussolini coined “fascism” in 1919 and “totalitario” in the 1920s, both of which mean “all within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.” Under Stalin’s rule, all citizens’ needs and rights had to take a back seat to those of the state as a whole. Stalin convinced his people they were the spearhead of global socialism by constantly repeating the phrase “Workers of the world, unite!” only to strengthen his own totalitarian regime.
In 1929, Joseph Stalin’s persona was elevated to a status of reverence and became a central aspect of Soviet culture. Throughout his regime, the Soviet media portrayed Stalin as an omnipotent and omniscient leader, with his name and likeness being omnipresent. Benito Mussolini’s participation in World War I and his survival of many assassination attempts were similarly used to build a mysterious aura and a cult of personality around him.
Their Overlapping Personalities as Dictators
Stalin and Mussolini had some overlapping personalities as dictators. Image: Wikimedia.
It would seem that in times of societal unrest, people yearn for a Messiah figure to restore peace and stability. However, hopelessness and ruin are frequently the end results. Just like most dictators, Stalin and Mussolini were essentially megalomaniacs. Both leaders had delusions of grandeur and an obsession with power. They were very driven, obstinate, and also clever. They were able to manipulate a whole nation into adopting a destructive ideology. And maybe the most salient feature they shared was a penchant for deception and manipulation.
Even though Stalin was not known as much as an orator as Mussolini, both he and Mussolini were able to rally the masses behind them with their long and impressive speeches, charisma, and leadership abilities. They were all masters of propaganda, able to rally support for even the most outlandish causes. Since he was not particularly a speaker, Stalin especially achieved this by controlling every aspect of politics to the point where he became an absolute dictator.
Stalin heavily promoted himself through the media as an exceptional leader, using monikers such as “great,” “wise,” or “genius,” positioning himself as a benevolent yet powerful father to the Soviet people. Stalin’s image was tailored to represent Bolshevik ideals and a revolutionary new social order. Similarly, Benito Mussolini saw himself as a revolutionary, and similar to the “father” figure of Stalin, he was “the instrument of the incorporated national will.” The two figures were overly narcissistic.
Stalin was often abused and beaten by his parents, making his early life hateful and violent. In their later lives, both Stalin and Mussolini had a penchant for violence. Mussolini was known as a bully and participant in violent altercations throughout his younger years. He stabbed a student in the hand, and the boarding school eventually expelled him. At the next school, he was again engaged in a stabbing incident. He also later admitted to stabbing his girlfriend in the arm.
Stalin and Mussolini’s Comparable Impacts on Their Countries
Celebrations over the overthrow of Mussolini’s government, 1945.
Mussolini organized monopolies in several sectors, including finance, labor, agriculture, and the professions. But because of all the things he attempted to correct, industrial output, imports, exports, and unemployment all fell during Mussolini’s rule. Similar to Mussolini, Stalin’s economic programs had a devastating effect on the populace and were so badly handled under Soviet leadership that any improvement was quite insignificant.
Stalin ascended to power in the Soviet Union in 1934 by removing whatever opposition he could via a combination of show trials and murder. Then, he began a string of purges, accusing those in the Communist Party who had been active during the 1917 Revolution of treason. Many admitted to their alleged misdeeds during open court proceedings.
Similarly, during Mussolini’s rise to power, the government of Italy never ordered its armed forces to put down Mussolini’s rebellion. Mussolini’s armed fascist squads roamed the nation from 1920 to 1922 murdering an estimated 2,000 political opponents. Mussolini deported hundreds of thousands of people and was responsible for the execution of 42 Italians. Around one million people’s lives were taken by Mussolini, and countless more were ruined because of him.
Just like Mussolini, millions of people’s lives were touched by Stalin. Countless peasants perished as a direct result of Stalin’s terrible economic policies and as many as 20 million people died at Stalin’s hands due to his callousness and lack of compassion. Despite this, he continued to be a powerful ruler among his own people.
The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel is believed to be over 5,100–5,350 years old, making it the oldest of its kind in the world. This ancient wooden wheel from the Chalcolithic (Copper Age) measuring 72 cm (28.35 inches) in diameter was found 12.5 miles (20 kilometers) south of Ljubljana in Slovenia. The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel is technically not the oldest wheel in history since we have older evidence of the wheel’s usage in Mesopotamia, as there are several clay toys with an axle. However, what matters is the creation of the axle, not the wheel. And the Ljubljana Marshes Wheel is the oldest wheel ever discovered. Dated to around 3,200 BC, it is the oldest wooden wheel in the world with an axle used for transportation.
The Oldest Wheel
The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel is the oldest wheel ever found. Image: Matevž Paternoster / MGML.
The earliest wheels in Europe, like those in Mesopotamia, lacked spokes. However, in 2002, an exciting discovery was made when the oldest known wooden wheel mounted on an axle was found buried in a marsh near Ljubljana, Slovenia. Radiocarbon dating revealed that the wheel and axle date back to 3340–3030 BC and 3360–3045 BC, respectively, making it a valuable Neolithic artifact.
The finding generated controversy regarding who actually developed the first wheel and if it was invented concurrently in Mesopotamia and Europe. Stone, chopped tree trunks, or clay would be used to create the earliest wheels, but these would be too coarse, heavy, and brittle. Those “tournettes” are seen in Iranian pictograms from the 6th millennium BC. But the vehicle wheel itself has a considerably more contested lineage.
In a glass case at the Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana, you can see the real Ljubljana Marshes Wheel and its axle. Image: Rfi.
In 1875, archaeologists uncovered the foundations of pile houses in the Ljubljana Marshes. These ancient ruins, situated in a regional park just outside of Ljubljana, are characterized by their unique construction on wooden columns in wetlands or watery areas. With a length of 7 meters (23 feet) and a width of 3.5 meters (11.5 feet), the dwellings were spaced 2 meters (6.6 feet) to 3 meters (9.8 feet) apart. The pile dwelling settlements at Ljubljansko barje have been recognized as a World Heritage site by UNESCO since 2011.
One particularly fascinating discovery from the site is an ancient wooden wheel with an axle. This Ljubljana Marshes Wheel with a 72 cm (28.4 in) diameter and 5 cm (1.97 in) thickness was crafted from oak and ash some 5,200 years ago. Because the hole on the wheel is crimped by the wedges into a square shape, it is believed that its 124-centimeter (49 in) long axle also rotated.
How Was Ljubljana Marshes Wheel Constructed?
The wooden Ljubljana Marshes Wheel. (Photo by Nebojsa Tejic-STA)
The dendrochronology, or the study of tree rings, was a useful addition to the radiocarbon dating. Because the tree used for the crafting of this wheel was 80 years old. The wheel was crafted from two wooden boards that were fastened together with the use of four supports, which were inserted into meticulously carved grooves known as tenon slots. This method of construction is a traditional technique that dates back to ancient times.
Burn marks can be seen on both the wheel and the axle, indicating that the wood was scorched to protect it from the xylophagous parasites.
The wheel-axle assembly technique used for the Ljubljana wheel is unique in that it allows for the wheel and axle to rotate together, similar to the pile dwelling constructions found in the Alps. Pile-dwellers first called this place home about 9,000 years ago. In the Mesolithic, they began a subsistence lifestyle focused on hunting, fishing, and gathering that would last them until the Neolithic, in the seventh millennium. These prehistoric humans had a knack for elevating their dwellings on wooden piles above the damp earth.
The replica of the Ljubljana Marshes Wheel is currently located at the Ljubljana City Museum in Slovenia. Image: via Twitter.
What Purpose Did the Ljubljana Marshes Wheel Serve?
The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel either belonged to a hand-pulled or ox-pulled cart that had just two wheels. The initial idea was that the set related to a hand-pulled cart rather than a draft vehicle. But according to modern theories, it could have really been used to harness a couple of animals for transportation.
The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel may have been used to transport crops and other heavy goods, allowing for the establishment of a trading route around the area. The wheel is remarkable for its size and antiquity, setting it apart from others of its kind discovered in areas like Switzerland and Germany.
The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel was restored during a ten-year period at the Institute for Archaeological Research in Mainz, Germany, and is presently on exhibit at the Ljubljana Museum. At the Ljubljana City Museum and the National Museum of Slovenia, people can see some of the most important finds from the excavation, along with the oldest wheel ever found.
References
Holm, Hans J. J. G.: The Earliest Wheel Finds, Their Archaeology and Indo-European Terminology in Time and Space, and Early Migrations around the Caucasus. 2019. [PDF] ISBN 978-615-5766-30-5.
Julius Caesar represents more than just ancient Rome today; he represents the entire world. Scholars agree that he was the impetus behind the rise of modern Europe. Caesar possessed an abundance of charisma, a quality crucial for a politician and a statesman. He won the hearts of many of his contemporaries and successors. His reputation as an exceptional leader and politician, a brilliant orator and writer, and a multitalented genius has stood the test of time. Julius Caesar’s commentaries on the Gallic and civil wars are his main contribution to the literature. Caesar’s writings were studied for their military advice and inspiration. It’s no coincidence that in the Roman catacombs of The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas does not miss the chance to mention Caesar’s Commentaries.
Caesar’s terrible death as a martyr has been glorified and has provided artists with endless fodder for their craft. Along with Judas, a traitor to divine glory, Dante placed Brutus and Cassius, the two main Caesarean killers, in the Ninth Circle of Hell, where Lucifer himself torments them for their transgressions against human grandeur. Numerous anecdotes, semi-legendary tales, and common adages have Caesar as their inspiration or central figure. Examining the ancient traditions allows readers to establish their own impressions of the Roman dictator, who is certainly not easy to assess objectively.
1- Caesar Was Born by Caesarean Section – Hence the Name of the Operation
Medieval depiction of Caesarian birth. Source: British Library
Before the time of Julius Caesar, obstetricians routinely performed procedures similar to the Caesarean section (“sectio caesarea”). Dionysus, the god of wine, and Asclepius, the god of healing, were both taken from the wombs of deceased mothers in Greek mythology and resembled genuine medical instances. Ancient Indian, Chinese, Babylonian, Iranian, and other texts also make reference to this procedure. Laws enacted by King Numa Pompilius (“leges regiae”) of ancient Rome prohibited the burial of a pregnant woman without first removing the fetus. This was the case 700 years before Caesar was born.
According to Pliny the Elder, several well-known Romans were born via Caesarean section. These include Scipio Africanus, who beat Hannibal; Manius Manilius, who led an army into Carthage; and the first of the Caesars (not Julius Caesar himself). Pliny states that Caesar’s ancestor was prematurely delivered through the cutting of the mother’s womb (caeso). Thus comes the family name of the Caesars: a caeso matris utero dictus.
Born around 100 or 101 BC, Julius Caesar is considered one of the most influential figures in history. Due to the aforesaid rule, fetal removal was only performed when the mother was either near death or had already passed away, as it was not possible to perform the procedure in a way that would have kept both mother and child alive at the time. Additionally, we know that Caesar’s mother, Aurelius, lived through delivery and passed away in old age in 54 BC because of the accounts of Suetonius.
This is an example of a fabricated etymology. Explaining this misunderstanding is challenging. Pliny’s participle caesus (“dissected,” “cut up”), produced from the verb caedere, may have been mistaken for the adjective caesareus (“from Caesar”) by subsequent authors, in particular the developers of the 10th-century Byzantine Dictionary of the Court. Legend has it that Caesareus, or “Caesar,” was named after him. The mythology of Caesar’s birth was already widely circulated by the Middle Ages, with many medieval manuscripts featuring scenes of the young Caesar being ripped from his mother’s womb.
Verdict: Hardly.
2- Caesar Fought Asterix and Obelix, but Could Not Defeat Them
Vercingetorix throws down his arms at the feet of Julius Caesar, painted by Lionel Royer in 1899.
Claude Zidi’s film “Asterix and Obelix vs. Caesar“, based on the comic books by René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo, is based on characters that do not exist in real life. Long hair and breeches, a barbarous garment severely loathed by the Romans, are the only features they share in common with the actual Gauls of history.
It is true that Caesar was at war with the Gauls, and he was victorious. He held the office of consul in 59 BC. Following his year as consul, Caesar often served as viceroy with proconsular powers in a Roman province for the following year. Caesar foresaw this and had a law passed through a people’s tribune that gave him control of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyric (present-day Albania and Croatia) for five years.
The Senate later added Gallia Narbonensis (“Gaul of Narbonne,” modern-day Provence), which the Romans had conquered in the last third of the second century BC. Transalpine Gaul, or “Gaul on the far side of the Alps,” was the target of Caesar’s conquest plans. This region was roughly the size of modern-day France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland combined. Due to the Gallic fashion of having long hair, the Romans also referred to this untamed land as Gallia Comata.
Caesar won early victories in the war by subjugating many of the Gallic tribes and defeating the Germanic tribes that had invaded Gaul. Caesar’s mandate was extended for another five years in 56 BC.
All of the native tribes of Gaul, including the Eburones, Belgae, Nervians, and others, were ready to erupt at any moment. The all-Gaulish great uprising, which started in the winter of 53 BC, was the biggest difficulty the Romans ever faced. Vercingetorix, a youthful leader of the Arverni people, commanded the army in the year 52. It was true that Caesar had to retake Gaul. By the end of 51 BC, the Romans had finally managed to bring peace to Gaul.
Caesar “took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand-to-hand fighting and took as many more prisoners,” as Plutarch puts it, during the years Caesar spent in Gaul. Despite the questions that these unbelievable numbers pose, the outcomes of the Gallic Wars were outstanding. Rome captured a sizable territory and made massive plunder. Caesar benefited monetarily, but more crucially, by acquiring an army that was disciplined, experienced, and loyal.
The relatives and offspring of Asterix and Obelix were quickly Romanized. Caesar had already appointed a number of Gauls to the Roman Senate, and they celebrated their newfound status with songs like “Galli bracas deposuerunt, latum clavum sumpserunt,” which translates to “The Gauls set aside their bracae [the trousers of Gauls] and took up the laticlave.” The Roman upper magistrates and senators wore the pretense toga, distinguished by its wide purple border. After another few centuries, the Gauls would abandon their Druid priests and their own language in favor of a distorted form of Latin. Gaul eventually became one of the Roman Empire’s most Romanized regions.
Verdict: Wrong.
3- Did Caesar Crossed the Rubicon and Said: “The die is cast (Alea Iacta est)”
Caesar Crossing the Rubicon, Adolphe Yvon, 1875.
This took place at the outset of the dramatic civil war between Caesar and Pompey. Even though they were related (Julia, Caesar’s only daughter, married Pompey), the erstwhile allies of the first triumvirate turned out to be bitter enemies.
Julia passed away during delivery in 54 BC, and Crassus was killed in a failed Parthian war the following year, in 53 BC. For all intents and purposes, this spelled the end of the triumvirate. In Gaul, Caesar was racking up victory after victory. Pompey, on the other hand, was envious of Caesar because he believed the Gallic viceroy would eventually surpass him as Rome’s most capable military leader due to the viceroy’s growing popularity.
Caesar’s opponents in the Senate brought up the idea of removing his authority over Gaul sooner rather than later. At first, Pompey approved of these plots, but eventually he publicly aligned himself with Cato the Younger’s radical Optimates, who were adversaries of Pompey’s ex-father-in-law. Since the Optimates saw both Caesar and Pompey as prospective tyrants out to destroy the Senate, they opted for the lesser of two evils and formed an alliance with Pompey.
As of March 1, 49 BC, Caesar’s mandate was officially due to end. Caesar planned to run for consul (while he was absent), so he could switch from pro-consul to consul simply by resigning his current position. But his detractors called for his urgent presence and planned to put him on trial. The Gallic Command’s years of operating autonomously and without consideration for the Senate had amassed enough evidence against it. Pompey and the radical Optimates demanded a resolution for Caesar to relinquish his authority and dissolve the army during a Senate sitting on January 1, 49 BC.
In the event that the Gallic commander would not comply, Caesar was labeled an “enemy of the fatherland.” At 49 years old, Caesar heard about the turmoil in Rome and led his XIII legion (the only one he had west of the Alps) to the Rubicon River, which divided Cisalpine Gaul from Italy proper. Sulla’s dictatorship forbade the governor of the province from entering Italian territory with an army, and the governor’s crossing of the Rubicon with the legion heralded the start of a civil war.
All historians of his time cite Caesar’s apprehension and reflection at the Rubicon. According to Suetonius, Caesar said the following to his friends: “Even yet we may draw back; but once cross yon little bridge, and the whole issue is with the sword.” Then, miraculously, a tall, handsome man started playing the flute, grabbed a trumpet from one of the troops, splashed into the water, and swam to the other side while trumpeting the war signal.
Moving on, Caesar said, “Take we the course which the signs of the gods and the false dealing of our foes point out. The die is cast (Alea iacta est)“. The Greek historian Appian reports that a resolute Caesar told those in attendance, “My friends, stopping here will be the beginning of sorrows for me; crossing over will be such for all mankind.” Then, saying, “Let the die be cast,” Caesar “crossed with a rush like one inspired”. According to Plutarch, who also cites the same remark, Caesar originally spoke it in Greek.
Caesar made his way rapidly across Etruria and into Rome after crossing the Rubicon on January 10, 49 BC. This sparked yet another uprising during the latter years of the Roman Republic.
Verdict: He did.
4- Caesar Seized Power in Rome by Force
‘La clémence de César’ 1808 painting by Abel de Pujol depicting Julius Caesar.
Caesar crossed the Rubicon and marched toward Rome. As he marched into Italy, he encountered little in the way of real opposition; the Pompeians either surrendered or fled, while the smaller communities eagerly welcomed Caesar upon his arrival. Due to the quick advancement of the enemy, Pompey and his friends evacuated Rome, leaving behind the state treasury as well. With part of his army, Pompey marched to Greece. Seven more of his faithful troops were stationed in Spain.
Caesar’s policy of clementia (mercy) during the civil war, in which captives were routinely freed and no one was punished, was in direct response to the enemy’s strategy of clemency (pity). Caesar’s legions were open to recruits at will, and officers were frequently sent back to Pompey. This was in sharp contrast to the horrors done by both the Marians and the Sullans during the first Roman civil war and was unprecedented in the civil conflict that had plagued the Romans since the time of the Gracchus brothers (the final third of the second century BC). Caesar won every major battle, yet the civil war still lasted five years. The same dogged Pompeians who Caesar repeatedly crushed, only to free and forgive, turned against him.
The Civil War’s last fight took place at Munda, Spain, in March 45 BC. For a long time, nobody knew how everything would turn out. At some point, the lines of the Caesarians shook; suddenly, Caesar snatched his shield and raced forward to the enemy’s line. He took a barrage of spears before the ashamed centurions came to his aid. Caesar confessed that the fight at Munda was his toughest. He had often battled for success, but now, for the first time, he had to fight for his life.
Verdict: Correct.
5- Caesar Had An Affair With Cleopatra
Cleopatra and Caesar by Jean-Leon-Gerome (Alternate version), before 1866.
The meeting of Caesar and Cleopatra was tense. Dejected after Caesar’s historic victory against Pompey at the Battle of Pharsalus (48 BC), Pompey fled to Egypt in search of asylum, having previously shown excellent service to the late King Ptolemy Auletes of that country. Ptolemy XIII, King of Egypt at the tender age of 13, and his elder sister, Cleopatra VII, Queen of Egypt at the ripe old age of 20, were engaged in a bloody dynastic struggle for control of the Hellenistic state their father, Auletes, had founded. Ptolemy’s local royal guards made the decision to have Pompey killed to avoid a conflict with Caesar. They dispatched a boat for Pompey, and as soon as he got off the ship and onto the boat, he was murdered in front of his wife and son. Caesar, having accompanied Pompey to Alexandria, was appalled by the brutality and could not contain his emotions when he was presented with the severed head of his former opponent as a gift.
Caesar invaded Egypt with just two undermanned armies, yet the Romans nevertheless managed to seize key buildings like the royal palace in Alexandria. Egypt was understandably worried; Caesar intended to get revenge for the assassination of Pompey. There were signs of an impending war. The Roman said he wanted to resolve the succession dispute in Egypt and used this as an excuse to call for Cleopatra, who had either been kicked out of Alexandria or had fled the city herself. According to Plutarch, the girl was smuggled into the Roman camp away from her brother by having one of her friends carry her in a “bed bag.” This audacity on Cleopatra’s part impressed and fascinated Caesar. Herein lies the prologue to what would become one of the most widely read books in history.
The Egyptian queen was praised for her great beauty, loverliness, and sexuality by a wide range of authors from antiquity to the present era. Not surprisingly, the myth of “Cleopatra’s Egyptian nights” arose as a result of the widespread belief that she was a seductress, a demonic woman, and a charmer. According to Roman author Aurelius Victor from the fourth century, “many men paid with their lives for the possession of her for one night.” Cleopatra was the queen of Egypt, yet her flawless beauty is not reflected in antique busts or on coins commemorating her. Cleopatra was really appealing due to her brilliance and charisma. “The beauty of this woman was not what is called incomparable and strikes at first sight, but her treatment was distinguished by irresistible charm, and thus her appearance, combined with rare conviction of speech, had a huge charm, oozing in every word and oozing in every movement, firmly impressed in the soul,” wrote Plutarch. Her voice was like music to my ears; it was soothing and entrancing.
Cleopatra had an impressive education and mastered a number of tongues. Although she was the personification of the Egyptian goddess Isis and governed Egypt as its queen, the Greek-born Ptolemaic dynasty had dominated Egypt since the fall of Alexander the Great’s kingdom.
Caesar, unsurprisingly, sided with Cleopatra in her bid for Egypt’s crown and remained there for a significant amount of time. With the help of his newly arriving troops, Caesar quickly put down the anti-Roman uprising in Alexandria and ultimately beat Ptolemy’s forces. The young king was drowned in the Nile while trying to escape, and Cleopatra became ruler of Egypt. After that, the Roman commander was in no hurry to depart Egypt; instead, he and Cleopatra sailed down the Nile in a massive flotilla of 400 ships, taking in the sights and enjoying the finer things in life.
Even after Pompey’s death, the civil war continued. Caesar had to depart Egypt in the early summer of 47 BC because the Pompeians had grown stronger in the intervening months, and he didn’t want to risk losing the benefits of the Pharsalus triumph. Cleopatra gave birth to a son named Caesar (the Alexandrians dubbed him Caesarion, that is, “little Caesar”) not long after Caesar left, and the child, according to Suetonius, resembled his father in appearance and bearing.
Caesar invited Cleopatra to Rome in 46 BC, when he presented her with a sumptuous Tiber Riverside home and hosted a grand celebration in her honor. The purpose of the trip was to seal an alliance between Rome and Egypt, but the Egyptian queen ended up staying in Rome for quite some time. On the other hand, Caesar did not end his marriage to Calpurnia in order to wed Cleopatra. On the night before the Ides of March, he went to sleep for the last time.
Before leaving for the Senate on March 15, 1944, he spent some time with his wife, with whom he later bid farewell. Caesarion was never legally acknowledged as Caesar’s son, and Caesar did not name him as an heir in his testament. Suetonius adds that Caesar adored Cleopatra more than any other woman in his life.
Verdict: It’s true.
6- Caesar Is the Author of “I came; I saw; I conquered (Veni, vidi, vici)”
The Triumphs of Caesar IX: Julius Caesar, Andrea Mantegna, circa 1488.
The Latin words sound even more powerful because they all start with the same letter: Veni, vidi, vici. This phrase was first used by the Caesarians and Pompeians in the civil war during the Pontic campaign (49–45 BC). During a time of internal instability in Rome, the Bosporan monarch Pharnaces began reclaiming the territories that had belonged to his vanquished father Mithridates at the hands of Pompey.
The majority of the Kingdom of Pontus was annexed by Rome and made into the province of Pontus in 63 BC. Pharnaces betrayed his father during those events, for which he received a part of his kingdom (the Bosporus Kingdom) from the Romans. But that wasn’t enough for Mithridates’s son, who had visions of reestablishing a mighty Pontic empire. As soon as Caesar found out that Pharnaces was against him, he left Egypt. On August 2, 47 BC, they fought near the city of Zela, but Caesar won. The iconic “lightning” phrase was created because the Pontic battle was over in a flash, in just five days.
Various ancient authors testify that it was Caesar who uttered it, though with some discrepancies. According to Plutarch, Caesar wrote these remarks in a letter to his friend Amantius (however, it appears that Plutarch misrepresented the true identity of Caesar’s friend, Gaius Matius). According to Appian, the phrase may be found in a Senate report. According to Suetonius, a plaque bearing the inscription “Veni, vidi, vici” was carried among the trophies as part of Caesar’s pontic portion of the triumph in 46 BC, while he was celebrating his quadruple triumph (over Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, and Africa). Suetonius claims that “by this, Caesar was not noting the events of the war but the swiftness of its completion.”
Verdict: Yes, these are the words of the great Roman.
It was officially Caesar’s reign over Rome from 45 BC forward. His dictatorial powers provided him with a legitimate foundation for ruling. In the autumn of 49 BC, Caesar assumed dictatorship for the first time; however, he lasted just 11 days. During that period, he oversaw elections, celebrations, and the introduction of many bills, including legislation to provide free food to the poor and partially forgive debts. Caesar was granted dictatorial powers permanently following the Battle of Pharsalus at the end of 48 BC, similar to those granted to dictator Sulla.
The Senate also bestowed upon Caesar, the victor, a variety of unprecedented honors, including the authority to unilaterally declare war and negotiate peace, to run for consular office for five years, and to preside over the Senate for the rest of his life. In ancient Rome, the tribunes of the people had the power of veto, meaning they could block any law or decree from taking effect. Only commoners could hold such a job. Moreover, Caesar was born into a wealthy family.
Then, the Roman dictator benefited from a new trick: the division of powers. The dictator was granted censorship powers after the battle of Thapsus in 46 BC, which meant that he was responsible for selecting senators. As Senate princeps, he had the honor of speaking and voting first in all Senate proceedings; his curule chair was positioned between the consuls, the two highest Roman judges. The Senate, a bottomless pit of adulation, bestowed the titles of Liberator, Father of the Fatherland, and Emperor upon the winner after the Battle of Munda.
Around the turn of the year 44 BC, Caesar’s cult of personality reached its pinnacle. His person was made sacred (sacro sanctus), games were held in his honor, and his statue was worshiped alongside that of the gods. In February 44 BC, Caesar’s rule became absolute. The dictator’s authority began to seem more and more like that of a monarch, but it was mixed with the Senate, the magistracy, and the people’s assembly, all of which had republican roots. Caesar didn’t want to wipe them out entirely; he just put them under his thumb.
The tyrant did more than just shore up his own power; he also instituted reforms that brought stability to Roman society. He reinstated the sculptures of Sulla and Pompey in the Senate as part of his stated philosophy of generosity. There were new restrictions on living lavishly. There was a lot of building done. Using his expertise in astronomy, Egyptian astronomer Sosigenes oversaw a reform of the calendar. Approximately 80,000 Caesarite soldiers, including many Pompeian exiles, were granted land. Citizenship was awarded to residents of several towns and provinces, and the Romanization of the conquered peoples proceeded quickly as a result.
Verdict: It’s true.
8- Caesar Was Treacherously Murdered by His Best Friend, and Before He Died He Said: “And you, Brutus? (Et tu, Brute?)”
The assassination of Julius Caesar. Artist: William Holmes Sullivan, c. 1888.
At the start of the year 44 BC, Caesar was getting ready to launch a major offensive against the Parthian kingdom in the East. It was during this time that a plot was hatched against the dictator by a group that comprised several pardoned Pompeians, such as the commanders Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus. Although many Caesarians, like Decimus Brutus and Trebonius, opposed the dictator, there were also numerous Caesarians who owed their careers and fortunes to the dictator. Some people joined the conspirators for their own selfish purposes, but the vast majority did so out of a genuine concern that Caesar’s rule might devolve into a dictatorship.
During the Lupercalia celebration on February 15, 44, an occurrence took place that was very upsetting to certain segments of Roman society. Marc Antony, a Caesar ally and general, made an embarrassing effort to publicly present the dictator with a laurel wreath. Plutarch says, “Liquid acclaim surged throughout the populace, as had been arranged in preparation.” As one man put it, “When Caesar rejected the crown, all the people applauded.” This occurred again when Antony attempted the tactic a second time. As Caesar saw the crowd’s response, he gave the order for the crown to be transported to the Capitol’s Jupiter Temple. They inscribed “If only you were alive!” and “Oh, if only you were with us today” on a statue of Marcus Junius Brutus’ semi-legendary ancestor, Lucius Junius Brutus, one of the founders of the Roman Republic and a subverter of the last king, Tarquinius the Proud.
When Mark Junius Brutus was praetor (in 44), he got messages asking him something to the effect of, “Are you sleeping, Brutus?” “You’re not the genuine Brutus,” he said. Now, a word or two about Brutus, the man who came to symbolize the plot. Perhaps it was because his mother, Servilia, had been the dictator’s lover in the past, but Caesar had a warm place for him from the beginning. An even more improbable theory is that Brutus was really Caesar’s son, as suggested by certain ancient writers. In 85 BC, Brutus entered the world. Caesar was about 16 at the time, so he and Servilia didn’t really start dating until much later. Brutus initially sided with Pompey, but when the Pompeians were defeated at Pharsalus, he surrendered to Caesar and was recognized as one of his “closest allies.”
Brutus had a fruitful political career in the new era, rising to the positions of governor of Cisalpine Gaul (46 BC), praetor of Rome (44 BC), and consul (41 BC). However, this did not prevent Brutus from writing a eulogy for Caesar’s opponent, Cato, in 45 or from liking Cato himself. After divorcing Claudia Pulchera, Brutus married Cato’s daughter, Portia.
According to Plutarch, the other conspirators asked Cassius to recruit Brutus because they wanted a symbolic (because of his name) figure on their side.
On March 15, 44, the Ides of March, the conspirators met in the Senate one more time to plot Caesar’s assassination before launching an invasion of the Parthian Empire. Calpurnia, the dictator’s wife, had a nightmare in which she saw her dead husband, but Caesar nevertheless went to the Senate the day thereafter, despite the dire warnings and predictions being circulated about him. When the dictator ran across the fortune teller Spurinna, who had previously warned him of the peril that awaited him on the Ides of March, he joked that the Ides had already arrived. His reply was, “Yes, they have arrived, but they have not yet gone.”
Caesar was given a scroll by a bystander that revealed the murder plot and strategy, but the dictator didn’t have time to read it before he entered the Curia of Pompey, where the Senate was holding a conference. A number of senators encircled the dictator’s chair, their daggers glinting in the air. Senators who were unaware of the plot were so terrified that they were unable to take any defensive action or even raise their voices. It was decided that all the conspirators would take part in the murder and taste the sacrifice blood, so they all encircled him while brandishing bare daggers. Whenever he opened his eyes, he was struck with the strokes of swords aimed at his face and eyes. Caesar, who was badly injured, propped himself up against the base of Pompey’s statue, leaving a bloody mark.
The ancient authors who described this sad event all underlined Caesar’s emotional reaction to seeing Brutus among the killers. Seeing Brutus with a bare sword, Caesar flung his toga over his head and exposed himself to the blows, as Plutarch recounts, citing “some authors” who have not lived. Immediately before he struck, Dion Cassius claims the tyrant said in Greek, “And you, child!” Suetonius, citing some sources, states that Julius Caesar, upon being stabbed by Brutus, said in Greek, “And you, my child!” (καὶ σὺ τέκvον). However, “And you, Brute” (Et tu, Brute) is not cited anywhere. This line was first used by Shakespeare in his play Julius Caesar, where it was spoken by the dying tyrant.
According to doctor Antistius, the dictator had twenty-three stab wounds, but only one in the chest proved fatal. Whoever did it remains a mystery.
Brutus and Cassius, who were in charge of the plot, killed themselves two years after Antony and Octavian beat them at the Battle of Philippi.
Verdict: This is only partly true; Caesar considered Brutus his friend, but he did not utter these words.
Caesar was more than just a great leader; he was also a gifted writer and orator. In his youth, Caesar produced The Praise of Hercules, the play Oedipus, and the Collected Sayings, but Emperor Augustus forbade their publication, despite Suetonius’ claims that he had a passion for literature from a young age. As an adult, Caesar wrote his treatise on grammar, On Analogy, which was highly praised by Aulus Gellius, the author of the Attic Nights (2nd century). This academic work has not been passed on to us.
It is well known that Caesar took part in the debate between the analogists, who were close to him in spirit and emphasized that rules are more important than exceptions, and the anomalists, who paid a lot of attention to irregularities and deviations from the norm based on Latin linguistic norms. Sadly, none of his other writings, notably the poem The Way, have been preserved. The Way is an astronomical book written with Sosigenes and a political tract. “The Way,” a poetry collection, and “Anticato,” a political book, are both polemical responses to Cicero’s panegyric Cato.
Thankfully, both Caesar’s Notes on the Gallic War and his Notes on the Civil War have made it through the ages intact. The events of 52 BC, with Vercingetorix’s capitulation, mark the conclusion of the first seven volumes of Notes on the Gallic War, which detail the conquest of Gaul and the two forays into Britain. Caesar’s companion and comrade in arms, Aulus Hirtius, resumed his description of the wars in 51 and 50. Caesar was unable to complete “Notes on the Civil War,” since the third volume is broken up by the narrative of his arrival in Egypt and the Roman conquest of the city’s most significant landmarks. No one knows for sure who penned the sequel that concluded the Civil War narrative. Since ancient times, people have argued about who wrote these works. Some say it was Gaius Oppius, while others say it was Aulus Hirtius.
Intriguingly, Caesar never refers to himself in the first person, preferring instead to talk about himself in the third person to seem more objective and convincing. Nevertheless, despite his Notes’ bias, they are a valuable historical resource, and in certain areas (the history, religion, and culture of pre-Roman Gaul), they are the only available information at all. Plus, it’s really good Latin; Caesar uses straightforward language that manages to be both eloquent and moving. Every graduate of a classical gymnasium remembers the first phrase of Caesar’s Notes on the Gallic War with its charming rhythm and euphony, which unfortunately disappear in translation: Gallia est omnis divisa in partses tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur…
Verdict: Undeniable.
10- Caesar Wore a Laurel Wreath to Hide His Bald Head
Julius Caesar. Artist: Peter Paul Rubens, ca. 1625/26.
Suetonius describes Caesar as follows: “He was tall, fair-skinned, and well built; his face was a little full, and his eyes were black and lively.” Until the end of his life, when he began to have unexpected fainting episodes and night terrors and twice had fits of hysteria in the middle of courses, his health was outstanding. Caesar was meticulous about his personal grooming and took good care of his physique, even going so far as to remove his hair despite criticism from moralists of the day. The historian Suetonius reports that Caesar hated his bald head because of its ugliness. This is why he would always proudly wear the laurel wreath despite his thinning hair by combing it from the crown to the forehead.
Verdict: It’s true.
11- Caesar Could Do Three Things at the Same Time
Julius Caesar on horseback, writing and dictating simultaneously to his Scribes. Artist: Jacob de Gheyn I, between circa 1618 and circa 1622.
A number of ancient sources attest to Caesar’s problem-solving prowess and claim that he could handle any crisis with a single swift stroke of his sword. During the Gallic Wars, Caesar’s companions and soldiers saw him seated on a horse while he dictated letters to many scribes at once, as described by Plutarch. According to Suetonius, Caesar would read letters, messages, and other papers or write replies to them while watching gladiatorial duels. Pliny the Elder said that Caesar had “most excellent in strength of mind”(animi vigore praestantissimum). This meant that when he wasn’t busy with other things, he could dictate up to seven letters at once.
The great Roman may have simply switched from one task to another, but the impression is that he could multitask with ease.
Verdict: It’s true.
12- The Word “King” Also Comes from Caesar
In addition to the “Tsar” of Russia, there was also the “Kaiser” of Germany. Imperial Rome added “Caesar” to the emperor’s titulature alongside “Augustus.” Emperor Diocletian’s tetrarchy, which split the Roman Empire into four pieces at the close of the fourth century, included two senior rulers named “Augustus” and their subordinates named “Caesar.”
Both the Latin name Caesar and the Greek name Kαῖσαρ were widely adopted by the many nations and cultures in the area, including those who would eventually destroy the Roman Empire. Many Slavic peoples, according to Max Pasmer’s “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language,” got the title “Káisar” from the leaders of the Germanic tribe of Goths. Hence Old Russian and Old Slavonic cesar, Serbo-Croatian cesar, Slovenian césar, Czech císař, Slovak cisár, and Polish cesarz. Then Old Russian tsesar was abbreviated to tsesar, and then became tsar.
Tsars were commonly used to refer to the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire and Byzantium (hence Tsargrad, as Rus called Constantinople), biblical rulers, and Mongol khans in Old Russian and later in medieval tradition; unofficially, this title was tried on and Old Russian princes, and then the rulers of Moscow. Ivan IV was formally anointed Tsar of “all Russia” in 1547, at which time the term became widely used.
Verdict: It is true.
13- Caesar Came up With the Salad of the Same Name
There is very little direct connection between the salad and the Roman tyrant. The Italian-American chef Caesar Cardini, who in the 1920s and 1940s maintained a string of successful restaurants in Tijuana and San Diego (Baja California), is credited with creating the salad. Cesare Cardini, who immigrated to the United States from Italy in 1913 and bore the name of the Roman emperor, was the creator of one of America’s most beloved meals.
Rosa Cardini recalls that her father created this salad on July 4, 1924, when the kitchen ran out of food during the Independence Day celebration at the Caesar’s Place restaurant in the hotel of the same name in Tijuana.
Wallis Simpson, the Duchess of Windsor, made Caesar salad popular in Europe thanks to her frequent orders of the dish at the continent’s finest establishments during her many trips with the Duke of Windsor, the former king of Great Britain, Edward VIII, from whom she was divorced after their mesalliance led to his abdication. There is, however, another theory that Italian chef Giacomo Junia created the salad in Chicago in 1903 and named it after the great Roman since he was a fan of the guy.
Plutarch. Comparative Biographies. Caesar, Pompey, Cicero, Mark Antony, Brutus. Ed. С. S. Averintsev, M. L. Gasparov, S. P. Markish.
Gaius Julius Caesar. Notes of Julius Caesar and his successors. The Gallic War. Civil War. The war of Alexandria. The African War. Translated from Latin by M. M. Pokrovsky.
Egorov A. B. Antony and Cleopatra. Rome and Egypt: the Encounter of Civilizations. SPb., 2012.
Egorov A.B. Julius Caesar. Political Biography. SPb., 2014.
Mommsen T. History of Rome. Т. 2-3. SPb., 1994.
Utchenko S. L. Julius Caesar. М., 1976.
Fasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language.
Lurie S. The Changing Motives of Cesarean Section: From the Ancient World to the Twenty-First Century. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Vol. 271. 2005.
Beer has been around since the dawn of civilization and is one of the world’s most popular drinks. However, its creation is shrouded in mystery and the inventor of beer is unknown. In mythology, Osiris, the Egyptian god of agriculture, is credited with teaching humans how to manufacture beer. In ancient Egypt, beer was made by burying barley in pots to promote germination and then fermenting the malt paste with wild yeast. It is believed that hops may have been used as early as the 7th century BC. Almost every modern industrialized nation now has its own brewery, a tradition that originated in northern Europe at the beginning of the Christian era.
Who Invented Beer
It is impossible to determine exactly when beer was invented. It is generally believed that it originated in Mesopotamia around 8000 BC, when the earliest civilizations in the Middle East learned to farm grains, particularly barley and spelt (a kind of wheat). This region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers has been documented since the 4th millennium BC. The Sumerians were among the first to write and their clay tablets have given us the names of twenty different beers and the methods for making them.
Beer was essentially “liquid bread,” and the production method was as easy as baking a loaf of bread. Small loaves of bread were produced from germinated and crushed grain seeds and then partially baked in an oven. The Sumerians would then break them up and put them in enormous jars of water to ferment for a few days. They added dates or honey for flavor and drank through reeds to filter out any particles that could be suspended in the liquid.
The making of beer received a boost from the Babylonians, who also established guidelines for the process in the 2nd millennium BC. In this period, the code of King Hammurabi regulated the manufacturing and taxation of beer, punishing bad brewers by drowning them in their own product. However, it was in ancient Egypt that beer-making really took off.
Beer in Egyptian Tradition
Long-stemmed beer jar, Ancient Egypt, New Kingdom period, 1550-1070 BC. Source: MFABoston.
Beer was supposedly invented by the Egyptians in 3000 BC. During the 19th century, archaeologists discovered grain storage baskets in pharaonic graves. On their voyage through the afterlife, was it cereal to produce bread or, on the contrary, to spawn a drink? Beer in ancient Egypt was flavored with juniper, ginger, saffron, and other spices and was known as heget or zythum in Greek, literally “barley wine,” as described by Herodotus in the 5th century BC. Since grapevines were not grown in Egypt, the locals fermented barley into wine instead. Later, commercial brewing developed, whether for the pharaoh’s enjoyment, the relief of the laborers constructing the pyramids, or the fulfillment of medical prescriptions.
Beer, in particular, was a vital part of the ancient diet because it provided essential nutrients, including amino acids and vitamins in ancient Egypt. Hundreds of treatments using beer are documented in ancient medical texts like the Ebers Papyrus, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC. There are components in beer that improve skin tone and texture. Cleopatra allegedly used beer in her baths. However, the most significant function played by beer was in cultic contexts.
It was a present from the Sumerians and Babylonians. The latter group used a special drink called sikaru to toast the gods. According to the Egyptian Book of the Dead, beer was taken to the afterlife with the deceased. The beer was also supported by two deities in the Egyptian pantheon: Osiris, patron of brewers, and Isis, defender of grains. As grain culture expanded to new areas, there were fewer barriers preventing the spread of beer.
Beer was initially considered a drink for the poor by ancient Greeks and Romans, who preferred wine. However, beer made its way to Gaul and other cooler regions where wheat and barley production was more common through the Iberian Peninsula because how they were more advantageous than grape cultivation. This led to the development of distinct beer cultures in Northern and Southern Europe. According to Tacitus, beer had become the preferred beverage of the Gauls and Celts by the first century, known as korma and cervoise, respectively. The Latin word for beer, cervesia, is derived from Ceres, the goddess of harvests and grains.
Back then, beer brewing was a collaborative effort by female family members. Indeed, in the very hearts of most houses, women were the ones in control of domestic production. Later, barley and wheat were added to the mash, and cumin was used to add flavor. A variety of alterations, such as juniper berries or mead, were possible. The “foudre” (a sort of barrel) for fermentation and the barrel for storage and transport are both innovations we owe to the Gauls. Beer could only be stored for a limited period, so it required rapid transportation of large quantities. These two innovations helped facilitate the trading of this beverage.
Though beer had been around since ancient times, it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that its production really took off, and not in the kitchens of homes but in the cellars of monasteries.
Beer, which had been overlooked since its origins in Greek and Roman culture, gained respect when it spread across Europe in the early Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages, hops were used more and more. This gave beer brewing a new level of importance as it became popular with royalty, nobility, the Church, and monastic groups.
Towards the “Sacredness” of Beer
Beer was just as secretive in the High Middle Ages as it had been in late antiquity. In fact, it was made entirely within the confines of a single household. However, the Church condemned it as the devil’s beverage of choice in contrast to wine, which was seen as the blood of Christ. Despite this, beer rapidly evolved into something new. Around the 7th and 8th centuries, monks began to take an interest in brewing beer when they established legitimate breweries near their monasteries. They drank beer every day, both for themselves and to fulfill their hospitality and charity obligations for pilgrims, the sick, and passing visitors, especially because beer was cheaper than wine. Later, when they needed more money, they sold the extra beer, just as they do today with their exquisite and rare Westvleteren Trappist beer.
Beer was not only an alcoholic drink but also a comfort drink and a medicine against infectious diseases because of its fermentation process. This technique was effective in preventing the major pathogenic threats of the era. The Church even saw beer as a gift from God; the operation of the yeast could be interpreted as a miracle, and even though medieval people had no idea how it worked, they certainly liked the end result.
During the Middle Ages, several saints were honored with the responsibility of protecting beer, just as the old gods were. For instance, Saint Arnould who served as Bishop of Metz in the 7th century, filled the empty jugs of the thirsty devout, earning him the title of patron saint of French brewers. Another Saint Arnould, from Flanders, is credited with preventing a plague from spreading across a community by encouraging its residents to use beer instead of water. The brewers of Ireland venerated Saint Columban, whereas those of Bavaria and Austria looked to Saint Florian for guidance. As a result, a different conception of beer emerged during the Middle Ages, which was mirrored by changes in brewing methods.
The Monastic Brewing Revolution
Medieval monks in a beer cellar, by Joseph Haier (1873). Source: Wikimedia
Throughout the Western Middle Ages, there was a trend of monks perfecting the skill of brewing and creating new styles of beer. They perfected several types of top fermentation, some of which are still referred to on modern abbey beer labels. The Swiss Benedictine monastery of Saint-Gall had three breweries, all of which were in operation by the 7th century and each produced a unique style of beer. The first, made of barley, was reserved for dignitaries and members of the church’s upper ranks (bishop, abbot, etc.); the second, made of oats, was used daily by the monks; and the third, made from something simpler, was given to pilgrims.
Hops were initially used by monks in Europe for their preservation qualities rather than their bitterness, which was not always desired. Hops “stopped the putrefaction and prolonged the conservation,” as the abbess Hildegard of Bingen wrote in 1079. The registers of German abbeys from the 8th century contain numerous references to hop crops. In the 16th century, hop production in the West reached its peak in Bavaria and Bohemia.
Additionally, a significant development that would have a major impact on the beer industry originated in these abbeys. It is about bottom fermentation. Fermentation was especially difficult to control from a bacteriological perspective during the hot summer months. The beer was then aged for lengthy periods of time in the monks’ chilly caves, changing the way the yeasts fermented the beer. Lagering, which literally means “preserving” in German, was given to the resulting type of beer. Lagers, the German beer style, continue to be brewed using bottom fermentation, while most beers in Belgium and England use top fermentation.
Beer: From Monasteries to Guilds
Stamp issued in 1983 to celebrate the history of the Reinheitsgebot (German Beer Purity Law) and also to commemorate its 450th anniversary.
Even though monks played a significant role in establishing themselves as the leading brewers in the Middle Ages, they were not the only ones. According to an 11th-century charter from the bishop of Liège to the Huy brewers, small breweries also established themselves within urban towns. Brewers’ guilds, first mentioned in writing in the 13th century, emerged in the 14th and 15th centuries and were particularly formidable and luxurious in Flanders. Princes and nobles took the Brussels, Leuven, Hoegaarden, Antwerp, and Diest brewers’ guilds into consideration because they were the wealthiest and taxes on beer were a significant source of revenue.
Several laws were enacted to regulate the beer industry. It is well known that the Dukes of Burgundy cared about the standard of living in their region and, although their wine-measurement protocols were famous in Côte d’Or, they were not snobby about beer. It is important to note that the territory that is now Belgium was part of the Duchy of Burgundy at the time. In the 15th century, John the Fearless mandated hops as a spice and also established the Order of Hops. In 1516, William IV, Duke of Bavaria, enacted the code of purity known as Reinheitsgebot, which stated that “the beer can include just water, malt, and hops.” This regulation affected the entire German Empire and is still debated today by beer drinkers who believe that only German beer meets their health standards.
Therefore, the current categorizations of beer demonstrate the significant role the Middle Ages played in the development of this beverage. Its medieval origins explain why modern German beers are so different from Belgian beers, despite their proximity. Before the 19th century and the Industrial Revolution, beer had not changed significantly.
The Middle Ages may have laid the foundation for beer brewing, but it was the Industrial Revolution and advances in science that truly propelled beer into the modern era of mass production and distribution. Changes in the 19th century enabled beer to have the appearance, smell, and taste it has today.
From the Ancien Régime to the Industrial Revolution
Brewing during the contemporary era was still mostly done on a small scale by monks and housewives. Most brewers could only sell their products within a very small radius. The low market value of beer and the fact that it had to be transported in large, bulky barrels by horse and cart hindered its industrialization outside of major towns where demand was stronger. However, the ingredients for beer could be transported more easily, leading to real business opportunities in regional production and consumption.
In the Western world, authorities sought to regulate the production and sale of beer. For example, in 1544, Charles V passed legislation outlining the roles of brewers, dealers, and outlets (cabarets). As a result, those in authority became increasingly concerned with finding ways to regulate this popular commodity. In the 1630s, Louis XIII of France even established a group of controllers for brewers to help enforce laws on the use of hops in alcoholic beverages.
Weinhard’s Brewery, Portland, USA, 1890. Source: Library of Congress Geography and Map Division
Beer was also brought to the New World during this period. Even though the Americas were already familiar with this drink (cassava beer prepared by the Jivaro Indians in South America was confirmed as early as the 16th century), the first breweries based on European technology were developed around the beginning of the 17th century in North America. In 1668 or 1669, with the help of Jean Talon, Intendant of New France, the first Quebec brewery opened. A century later, the Molson Brewery was founded in Montreal, making it the oldest American brewery in continuous operation. The American and European beer businesses did not really pick up again until the Industrial Revolution.
Distribution and Production of Beer in the 19th Century
An illustration of James Watt’s steam machine, made in the 1780s.
Beer’s industrialization in the 19th century may be likened to the expansion of transportation options at the time. Many contemporary breweries are located next to rivers not only because water is necessary in the production of beer but also because doing so facilitates its distribution through waterways.
While the expansion of canal transportation in the 18th century had some impact on beer’s success, it was the steam-powered railroad in the 19th century that truly revolutionized distribution. This led to the emergence of major worldwide breweries that also relied on steam to produce beer at scale, replacing the labor of humans and horses.
The end of the 18th century saw the first reports of this phenomenon. The Scottish inventor James Watt developed a new steam engine in 1774 that was quickly adopted by breweries in London. This engine replaced the work of hundreds of horses in grinding malt and pumping water. By the turn of the 19th century, London’s Whitbread Brewery had the highest output, producing approximately 200,000 barrels annually.
The development of industrial refrigeration in the 1830s made possible the low fermentation typical of the beers most people drink today. Thermometers and temperature control hydrometers were also among the technological advancements that impacted the large breweries. The development and widespread use of refrigeration equipment towards the century’s conclusion sealed the deal for this refreshing drink. This beverage went from being made by hand in a small town to a multi-million dollar business thanks to the advent of industrialization. The only thing left to do was crack the code of beer fermentation.
Pasteur’s Legacy to Beer
Louis Pasteur in his laboratory, painting by A. Edelfeldt in 1885.
The French scientist Louis Pasteur‘s discovery paved the way for new innovations in the beer industry, which are largely responsible for the beer we know today. It was not easy to mass produce beer, especially brews with a high fermentation rate, as the resultant substance was often not very volatile, hazy, unstable, or rapidly acidic.
Inspired by the success of his 1866 study on wine, Pasteur helped French brewers improve their products so that they could better compete with their European counterparts. Yeast converts glucose into ethanol and carbon dioxide, and Pasteur set out to learn how this process works. In his 1876 study on beer, he explained the process of fermentation and offered some thoughts on how to keep items clean and safe from contamination before selling them. The beer was then subjected to a slow process of pasteurization, rendering it almost unchangeable and preserving it for months.
Thanks to improvements in science and technology in beer brewing, it is now possible to make a clear, taint-free drink that is on par with the best. In many ways, this is identical to the beer we are already drinking.
The Main Ingredients of Beer
Beer, like wine, is sourced from grains. There are several grains available for the brewer to choose from, with barley being the most popular option due to its starch content. Wheat (particularly for white beers), oats, spelt, rye, millet, and even sorghum can also be used in conjunction with or in place of barley. The grains are processed into malt, from which sugar is extracted.
Water makes up the majority of beer and its quality and bacteriological cleanliness play a significant role in the taste of the final product. The minerals present in the water can also affect the flavor of the beer, with calcium reducing the alkalinity of the grains and aiding in fermentation.
Hops are a vital ingredient in beer as they provide bitterness and help to preserve the beverage. There are now numerous types of hops, each with its own distinct flavor and level of bitterness. Spices such as cinnamon, cumin, paprika, cloves, juniper berries, coriander, star anise, and nutmeg can also be used in beer, as well as fruit flavors like kriek and alcoholic beverages like cognac, vodka, and tequila.
It is now possible to brew beer without using yeast, a single-celled bacterium that is responsible for fermentation by changing sugar into alcohol, and adds flavor and texture to the final product. There are various types of yeast, with the specific type often being kept secret by brewers.
The Making of Beer
Malting is the first step in the process of making beer. Grains, particularly barley, contain sugars that are only released during germination. To extract these sugars, the grains are induced to germinate and then dried before the plant develops further. The temperature at which the grains are dried can be controlled by brewers to create either a clear or caramel malt, and darker malts such as those used in Guinness impart chocolate and roasted coffee flavors.
The next phase of the brewing process is the core activity. The malt is ground into flour and mixed with water to form a paste, which is then heated to convert the starch into dextrins and maltose. After this brewing process, the resulting liquid, known as wort, is filtered to remove any remaining solid malt and boiled. Hops are added at this stage of brewing, and other spices may also be included. Once the desired fermentation temperature is reached, the wort is filtered and chilled.
Fermentation occurs when yeasts convert carbohydrates into alcohol and carbon dioxide. There are two main types of yeasts that cause different types of fermentation. Traditional beers from certain regions, such as Belgium, the UK, and northern France, undergo top fermentation for a week or less at temperatures between 15 and 25 °C. Bottom fermentation takes place at a cooler temperature range of 6 to 12 °C and can last up to 10 days. This process is used in lager and pilsner beers (classic lager). A third type of fermentation, called spontaneous fermentation, is used by a few breweries in Belgium to make lambic-style beers like gueuze. This process is more prolonged and complex, using natural yeast and requiring storage for a period of time.
The final steps in the process are aging and packaging. Beer needs time to mature after fermentation, so it is typically stored for a few weeks before being filtered to achieve clarity. It is then bottled or placed in barrels, and in some cases, carbon dioxide may be injected. The final step is tasting the beer.
Did Charles Martel really save western Europe from the Arabs? Psychologists would undoubtedly have a fit if they knew Charles was at a disadvantage in every way while his half-brothers flourished under their father’s reign. In fact, not even the court historians paid attention to him. In the end, his father disinherited him, and his stepmother sent him into captivity. He probably would have been executed if he hadn’t escaped. No one knows for sure what effects this had on the young Charles’ mind. Charles Martel (ca. 688/91–741), the prince who slayed his opponents like a hammer, did everything he could from that point on to live up to his moniker.
Charles owed his delay to his mother Alpaida, who was likely simply a concubine of his father Pepin, whom Charles met long after Pepin’s marriage to the power-conscious Plectrude. She gave birth to Drogo and Grimoald, who went on to hold the greatest posts in the Frankish Empire.
Pepin of Herstal was the Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia, which was the name of the eastern part of the empire. After his victory over the western Neustrian nobles, he ascended to the position of the most influential man in the region. The Merovingian monarchs’ reign was at best nominal. The household emperors, who served as ministers, were wielding the actual power.
However, Drogo and Grimoald both passed away before their father, prompting Plectrude to do all in her power to ensure that their grandchildren would maintain the typical status of the Arnulfing clan members—later renamed the Carolingians. However, Charles’ stepmother was no match for the nobles of Neustria, who successfully declared war on her. After Charles’s jailbreak in Cologne, several prominent Austrians came to his aid. He overcame his Western opponents and coerced Plectrude into giving him the Merovingian royal riches. From that point on, it was one hit after another.
Charles began by confronting the princes who had supported his stepmother. The Carolingians had an uncompromising desire for power, and their troops plowed through the entire empire year after year, causing misery for the Frisians, Saxons, Bavarians, Alemanni, and, eventually, Neustria and Aquitaine. His political acumen was on display in the way he skillfully played on the animosity between the various families.
The expanding Carolingian territories and the reclaimed royal property supplied the funds for his military endeavors. Similarly, Charles had no qualms about seizing church property. He presumably didn’t care much about learning or culture. The sword became his preferred method of command.
Charles Martel’s Legendary Battle of Tours
Bataille de Poitiers (Battle of Tours), table of Charles de Steuben (1837).
The legendary campaign that Charles led to Poitiers (Tours) in the west in 732 is often recognized as his greatest achievement. Abd al-Rahman, the Muslim governor of Al-Andalus, opposed him. Al-Andalus was a province of the Arab Empire that had been founded on the Iberian Peninsula following the Arab defeat of the Visigoth Empire in 711.
The Umayyad caliphs of Baghdad had repeatedly sent invading troops to Gaul, only to be beaten back each time. Because of the poor condition of the sources, the nature of the assault in 732 has not been resolved yet. Some historians have assumed the invasion was a regular invasion due to the importance of their commanders, while other medievalist historians assume it was one of the customary attacks, which were merely for plunder.
The onslaught continued nevertheless, and the Duke of Aquitaine was powerless to halt it. The prosperous Loire Valley city of Tours appeared to have been the Muslims’ next target. The fact that Charles’ army was bolstered by Lombards, Saxons, Frisians, and Aquitanians indicates how dangerous the Frankish Empire was seen to be. On and around October 25, 732, the two sides fought between Poitiers and Tours for seven days. Abd al-Rahman gave the command to strike on the seventh day.
From what little information we have, it appears that the Franks and their allies battled on foot, while the Arabs and Berbers rode horses. By forming a phalanx, Charles’ troops were able to fend off the onslaught and eventually wipe out the weaker, less well-equipped foe. When Abd al-Rahman was mortally wounded and fell from his horse, the morale of his troops plummeted:
“Prince Charles boldly drew up his battle lines against them [the Arabs] and the warrior rushed in against them. With Christ’s help, he overturned their tents and hastened to battle to grind them small in slaughter. The king Abdirama having been killed, he destroyed [them], driving forth the army, he fought and won. Thus did the victor triumph over his enemies.”
Fouracre, Continuations of Fredegar, p. 149
Was Charles Martel Really the Savior of the West?
Charles Martel divided the realm between his sons Pepin and Carloman.
His reputation as the “savior of the West” has grown in prominence through subsequent generations. A popular saying goes that if Charles Martel hadn’t won, London and Paris wouldn’t have church steeples but minarets, and Oxford would have taught the Koran instead of the Bible.
However, many historians of the present day view the Al-Andalus ascendancy as nothing more than a preliminary step. And according to others, those preliminary steps could eventually lead to the occupation.
Some medievalists like Johannes Fried offers a fresh take on the meaning of this claim. He defends the fact that Pepin’s son Charles fought against the Saracens and that Duke Eudo of Aquitaine’s triumph formed the foundation of the narrative of the magnificent, all-decisive victory at Poitiers in 732.
Whatever the case may be, Carolingian Charles became the appropriate figure of redemption after his army’s victory over foreign “infidels.” This let people forget the savagery of his early years as “king.” Due to his high status, he was able to administer the Frankish Empire as king following the death of Merovingian shadow king Dagobert Theuderic IV in 737 until his own death in 741. Pepin the Short, Charles’s son, was tasked with expanding the empire and establishing the Carolingians as the second ruling dynasty.
Interestingly, another Arab invasion is more commonly mentioned in conjunction with Charles Martel’s triumph at Poitiers (Battle of Tours). This other one may have altered the path of European history as well: The Caliph Sulaiman launched an attack on Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 717. The Muslims’ invasion was repelled by the Greeks’ fire, leading to their ultimate defeat.
It is stated that the Arab Empire’s offensive might was permanently weakened by this defeat. While this is true, it ignores the reality that in 751, its soldiers nonetheless penetrated deep into Central Asia and halted Chinese westward progress at the Battle of Talas. When the Abbasids, who succeeded the Umayyads in 750, relocated the seat of their empire from Damascus to Baghdad, which was located in the east of their territory, Byzantium and the rest of Europe disappeared from view from that point on.
References
Fouracre, Paul (2000). The age of Charles Martel. Harlow, England: Longman. ISBN 0-582-06475-9. OCLC 43634337.
Kreiner, Jamie (2014). The Social Life of Hagiography in the Merovingian Kingdom. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-107-65839-4. OCLC 1089392785.
What is the origin of the Nazi salute “Sieg Heil”? Harvard University is said to have played a central role in the history of the Sieg Heil salute. Ernst Hanfstaengl (1887-1975), an early supporter of Adolf Hitler who later turned against the Nazis, claimed that the Nazi battle cry “Sieg Heil” was actually stolen from Harvard. What evidence did Hanfstaengl use to make his case, and how convincing is his assertion?
Hitler’s Pianist as the Source of Sieg Heil
Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl.
In Munich in January 1923, Adolf Hitler met a pianist named Ernst Hanfstaengl. This specific Hanfstaengl attended and graduated from the prestigious Harvard University in the United States. He wrote a couple songs for the Harvard football team while he was a student there. After World War I, the Hanfstaengl family moved back to Germany, where the musician eventually crossed paths with Adolf Hitler in early 1923. Hanfstaengl was introduced to Hitler and quickly became a fan of the Führer’s magnetic personality.
Hanfstaengl played some outstanding marches during his meetings with Hitler, which he had previously performed at Harvard. Tradition has it that as Hanfstaengl recited the football chant “Fight fiercely, Harvard! Fight, fight, fight!“—a slogan the cheerleaders always roared—Hitler yelled:
That’s it, Hanfstaengl! Excellent, just what our movement needs.
Adolf Hitler
According to historians, Hanfstaengl had replaced the droning “Fight fiercely, Harvard! Fight, fight, fight!” with the German “Sieg Heil” long before that. Hitler appropriated Hanfstaengl’s “Sieg Heil,” and as a result, the Nazis developed their terrifying catchphrase. At least, that’s what Hanfstaengl told the precursor to the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), in 1942.
Adolf Hitler with Hermann Göring and Ernst Hanfstaengl in Berlin 1932.
Hanfstaengl’s memoir Hitler: The Memoir of the Nazi Insider Who Turned Against the Fuhrer, published in 1970, detailed his American experiences. He said that the concept for the Hitler salute, with one arm raised in a diagonal motion, came from the United States. He said that the Nazi salute of outstretched arms was inspired not by Benito Mussolini and fascism but by the Harvard crowd and cheerleaders at a soccer game.
Different Opinions on The Origin of Sieg Heil
It’s reasonable to question Hanfstaengl’s assertion about the “Sieg Heil” motto. Historians Philip Gooden and Peter Lewis wrote convincingly in their book The Word at War: World War Two in 100 Phrases that Hanfstaengl’s assertions may have also been a form of retribution against Harvard University. The “Sieg Heil” claim was made eight years after Harvard awarded him an honorary degree and a ,000 payment, in 1942.
In fact, Hanfstaengl went back to Harvard for a 25-year reunion in 1934. Around 1,500 New Yorkers staged a demonstration against his appearance there after learning of his friendship with Hitler. The university ultimately decided against giving Hanfstaengl an honorary degree due to student protests.
There have been numerous uses of the phrases “sieg” and “heil” in the past. For instance, we know that at least as early as 1906, according to Samuel Koehne, the motto “Heil and Sieg!” was widely used in the Thule Society (Thule-Gesellschaft) association.
It is believed that Adolf Hitler adapted the “Hitler salute” from Benito Mussolini’s fascists.
Mussolini had already established himself as Italy’s dictator by late 1922, and according to historians Philip Gooden and Peter Lewis, Hitler copied Mussolini’s raised arm position.
How Did It Go with Hanfstaengl?
In November of 1923, Ernst Hanfstaengl took part in the Beer Hall Putsch (also known as the Munich Putsch), which ultimately failed. He then escaped to Austria. Actually, Adolf Hitler took refuge at the home of Hanfstaengl and his wife, who famously stopped Hitler from killing himself. Following this, Hanfstaengl gathered the necessary funding to have Mein Kampf published by Hitler.
As the 1930s progressed, Hanfstaengl became less and less popular with Hitler and Goebbels. He had a falling out with Joseph Goebbels and eventually escaped to Britain in 1937. In 1942, at Franklin D. Roosevelt’s request, Hanfstaengl made the journey across the Atlantic to the United States. As one of Roosevelt’s political advisors, he was able to supply the Allies with extensive information about the Nazi leadership.
