Genghis Khan’s exact height is unknown, but estimates range from 5’6″ to 5’8″.
Genghis Khan’s family, the Borjigin clan, was known for producing tall individuals with striking features.
Genghis Khan imposed a ban on creating images of himself during his lifetime.
You can listen to this article.
How tall was Genghis Khan? Genghis Khan, the first emperor of the Mongol Empire, is a focal figure in global history. That is why the height of the emperor is also a topic of debate. The exact height of Genghis Khan was never recorded. Despite that, several historians place his height between 5’6″ and 5’8″ (1.68 and 1.73 m). Even though a clear answer to this question is elusive due to lack of hard facts, there are some convincing points, and clues regarding the Great Khan’s height.
Historical Records on How Tall Genghis Khan Was
The statue of Genghis Khan at the Government Palace in Ulan Bator. Image: Abhijit Chavda-YouTube.
Even though Genghis Khan’s actual height is unknown, Genghis is actually described as “tall” in contemporary Chinese documents. The truth is, people in Mongolia come in various shapes and sizes, so it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that some of the world’s tallest men today also call this nation home.
However, considering the diminutive size of Mongolian horses, Genghis Khan probably wasn’t too tall either. The Mongols’ success was largely due to the size of their horses. The native Mongolian horses that Genghis Khan’s army rode into battle on were small, but powerful. Their horses were between 12 and 14 hands in height (48–56 inches, 122–142 cm).
On the other hand, the European riding horses are bigger, standing 16–18 hands (64–72 inches, 163–183 cm). For comparison, the average height of a British male citizen during Genghis Khan’s time was around 5 feet 8 inches (1.73 m), as the skeletal evidence suggests.
Many Mongols get their impressive strength by participating in archery and wrestling, two of their ancient activities. Genghis Khan’s siblings were outstanding wrestlers, and he thus inherited their power.
When put in perspective, the typical height of a man in China has increased from 5’3″ to 5’7″ (160 to 170 cm) just during the 19th century. Since Temujin (Genghis Khan) was simply described as “tall” by the Chinese, it is also possible that he stood at a height in the range of 5’7″ to 5’9″ (170–175 cm).
However, these are just estimations, and they cannot be absolutely precise. It is impossible to estimate Genghis Khan’s height with certainty because of the lack of reliable documents and measurements from the time period.
The Impact of Genghis Khan’s Origin on His Height
Battle between Mongols & Chinese (1430). Jami’ al-tawarikh, Rashid al-Din.
The Russian historian Lev Gumilyov (1912–1992) asserts that the warriors of Genghis Khan’s army were predominantly tall, fair-haired individuals with blue or green eyes. This is also supported by the frescoes found in Manchuria.
Genghis Khan himself belonged to the ancient Borjigin family, which translates to “blue-eyed” and was known for producing tall, robust individuals with reddish blonde hair and striking blue or green eyes.
Additionally, men of the Borjigin clan were known for their long beards and wide foreheads. This description is also echoed in the works of Persian scientist and physician Rashid al-Din (“A Compendium of Chronicles“) and Italian traveler Marco Polo, who both depict Genghis Khan as a European-like figure.
The Avars, a group of migrant warriors from Mongolia, were known for their large physiques. This is evidenced in both Russian and Frankish chronicles, which describe the Avars as formidable opponents on the battlefield.
A Turco-Mongol or Tatar king is depicted in Russian epics as a towering figure with the head of a beer kettle, the eyes of a beer bowl, and broad shoulders spanning the length of an “oblique sazhen” — roughly 2.5 meters (8.2 feet).
He is also described as having a body like a haystack. Overall, this Tatar king is portrayed as a giant of a man, with a huge frame and striking features. Because of Genghis Khan’s massive frame, other populations naturally feared the Mongols.
The Truth About the Chinese Sources Regarding Genghis Khan’s Height
Genghis Khan’s 40-meter (130 ft) tall statue in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. (François Philipp, CC BY 2.0)
Genghis Khan, the Great Mongol, was renowned as the greatest warrior, so it stands to reason that he was also a formidable and imposing physical man with a well-developed chest and powerful arms. And just like today, most Chinese men during Genghis Khan’s reign favored a slimmer physique.
Genghis Khan’s physical size definitely left a positive impression on Chinese historians, since their records portray Genghis as tall and stocky. For the Chinese, to look at Genghis was to see a prototypical Mongol wrestler.
The Chinese frequently claimed that the Mongols were godlike in stature and appeared massive. This, of course, includes how tall Genghis Khan was. This makes sense, considering the Mongols’ penchant for large stature due to their diet and a lot of fighting.
And back in Genghis Khan’s day, almost every Mongol was a wrestler. Given their fondness for red meat, it should come as no surprise that Mongol wrestlers tended to be more muscular than most other people.
Arguments for Genghis Khan’s Height
Genghis Khan in the movie Mongol.
Some historians contend that Genghis Khan was likely taller than believed. They reference paintings and monuments of Genghis Khan that portray him as a towering presence. But Genghis Khan may have stood tall in his own right since many of the Mongol troops in his army were said to be quite tall. For instance, in the Chinese records, Mongols are described as very tall troops.
These days, a typical Mongol stands between 160 and 180 centimeters (63 and 71 inches) tall. However, this doesn’t mean much since the average height of people in a nation can increase or decrease a lot in relatively short periods of time.
For example, the skeletal evidence suggests that the average height of Englishmen increased from 167 centimeters to 170 centimeters (about 5 feet 5 inches) during the Roman colonization of Britain (200–410 AD). And the Norman invasion in 1066 also coincided with a rebound in the average height of British males.
Average heights had risen to 172 (67.7 inches) centimeters by the end of the early medieval period; by the 1100s, they had risen to 173 centimeters (68.1 inches), approaching the heights attained at the turn of the twentieth century.
On the other hand, scholars who believe Genghis Khan was shorter than traditionally thought point out that Genghis was a nomadic warrior and that a lower height could have been more advantageous for horseback riding and other tasks for people like Genghis.
Even if Genghis Khan was tall for his people, he probably would have been shorter than many world leaders of the time since the average Mongolian man of his era was about 5 feet, 4 inches (162 cm) tall.
How Tall Were Mongol Warriors?
The appearance of Mongol warriors from the Genghis Khan: Conquest & Culture exhibit. (Andrea Olson, EastIdahoNews)
Historians frequently describe the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan’s army as predominantly tall. Today, the average height of men in Mongolia is 170 centimeters (5’7″).
Given the recentness of the Mongol invasions and their still similar lifestyle, the Mongols’ height and physicality are likely to have remained similar since Genghis Khan. According to that, most Mongol warriors at the time could be taller than 1.75 meters (5′9″), if not close to 1.80 meters (5′11″).
Nutrition, lifestyle, and selection all have a role in growth. Frankish peasants, who seldom ate meat, were around 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) shorter than their feudal rulers throughout the early Middle Ages.
Because of their meat-based diet, the Mongols were expected to be physically larger than European nobility at the time. The Mongols’ bigger torsos would have made them seem towering to their foreign adversaries. Plus, their hefty frames and strong limbs make up for their lack of height.
How Tall is Genghis Khan’s Statue?
A 130-foot (40-meter) stainless-steel monument of Genghis Khan and his horse dominates the Mongolian steppe. The horse’s head has a walkable deck. (CC0 Image by Unsplash)
The Genghis Khan Equestrian Statue is a massive sculpture made of stainless steel that stands 130 feet tall and shows the great ruler riding a horse. This monument has the title of being the highest equestrian statue in the whole world.
It is perched atop a hill at a site named Tsonjin Boldog, barely 54 kilometers (33 miles) from Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, where it is said that Genghis Khan discovered a whip. The discovery of the whips was a sign of impending power, wealth, and achievement. The height of the tourist center alone is 10 meters (33 feet).
Why Are Mongolian Horses Short in Height?
It’s possible that smaller horse breeds evolved as a result of having to adapt to harsher natural temperatures and fewer nutrition sources, which is why the Mongolian horse is shorter in height than many other breeds. Despite being a small horse with a short and huge neck, the Mongolian horse has exceptionally developed forequarters.
Their hips and shoulders are broad, their backs are short, and their legs are robust. Mongol horses became excellent warhorses because of their fortitude, stamina, and ability to forage for themselves. The Mongol horse’s slowness in comparison to other breeds it encountered in battle was its worst shortcoming as a military horse.
Why Are Asians Shorter Than Western People?
Those of Asian heritage tend to be shorter in stature than the average person. This is because, during the previous ice age, people in Asia benefited from maintaining their core body temperature by having a smaller, more compact body shape. The dietary habits of Asian culture also contribute to the height gap, since they usually consist of less dairy and protein than Western diets.
When East Asians take the same quantity of calcium as their Western counterparts, they tend to be of similar height. While Asians are becoming taller, Americans are shrinking today. Individuals from more prosperous socioeconomic situations tend to be taller simply because they have greater access to nutritious food.
Surprisingly little is known about Genghis Kahn’s life or appearance. There are no surviving pictures or sculptures of him from his time period. However, Genghis Khan’s Mongol warriors were mostly tall, fair-haired men with blue or green eyes.
Genghis Khan was a member of the Borjigin family, which is translated as “blue-eyed” and was known for producing strong, tall individuals with reddish blonde hair and blue or green eyes.
When it comes to Genghis Khan, the reports paint a picture of a towering, powerful man with a big, bushy beard and a thick, flowing mane of hair. 14th-century Persian historian Rashid al-Din reported that Genghis had red hair and green eyes.
Despite the fact that Al-Din never actually met the Khan, it is possible that members of the ethnically diverse Mongol people may have such stunning traits.
Why Was Genghis Never Portrayed?
Genghis Khan’s official portrait, painted after his death under the supervision of his grandson Kublai Khan. (Image)
Genghis Khan, the chief of the Mongols, imposed a strict ban on the production of any artwork that depicted his image, including statues and coins. However, after his passing, the first representations of him were released.
Only Kublai Khan, Genghis Khan’s grandson, who had spent 12 years in close proximity to him, was able to paint a portrait of the legendary leader. The artist was closely supervised by Genghis Khan himself as he created the painting. The portrait, which dates back to 1278, was later colored in the 14th century.
Conclusion
The historical sources are not particularly reliable, and it is difficult to conclude how tall Genghis Khan was. But most sources agree that Genghis Khan was between 5’6″ and 5’8″ (168 cm and 173 cm). Despite his diminutive height, Genghis Khan was one of history’s most influential leaders due to the powerful Mongol Empire he founded and expanded to enormous size, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death.
When it came to his “height,” Genghis Khan was unquestionably a “towering” figure who had a significant impact on the world as it is now, regardless of how tall he really was. With his leadership and military skills, Genghis Khan was a key part of the Mongol Empire’s growth both in Asia and Europe.
After the collapse of Nazi Germany, many Germans sought to excuse their actions during the regime by claiming that “not everything was terrible under Hitler.” Despite the atrocities committed and the millions of deaths and sufferings, they did not speak out against the regime for the entire twelve years, instead choosing to focus on the personal benefits they may have gained, such as employment and personal contentment.
Allegedly Positive Aspects
The longstanding loyalty of Nazi Germany’s citizens to their government may be difficult to fathom until you consider the possibility that the dictatorship also had positive aspects. However, the purported benefits of Nazi authority were not made up after the fact.
The Nazi propaganda spent years reinforcing the myth that Adolf Hitler brought law and order to the streets, invented the autobahn, and saved the German economy out of a crisis. The Nazis expertly appropriated the achievements of the Weimar Republic and continued to build on them. Some discoveries were downplayed, while others were ignored entirely.
Nazi Propaganda Has Been Partially Successful to This Day
The Nazi propagandists were so effective that the myths they spread about the positive things that Hitler and his government did for the Germans are still, to some extent, ingrained in people’s minds. A 2007 study by Forsa found that one in four people thought some good could have come from living under Nazi tyranny.
A poll conducted in Austria in March 2013 is even more current and disturbing. 75 years after the “Anschluss” of the Alpine Republic to Hitler’s Germany, about 42% of people still think that the “Third Reich” definitely had some good things about it. Here are six myths the Nazis spread through propaganda and some people still believe today.
1- Hitler Invented the Autobahn
Hitler at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Reichsautobahn from Frankfurt via Darmstadt and Mannheim to Heidelberg.
The statement “The autobahns are a legacy of Hitler’s rule” is often used as an example of the belief that there were some positive aspects of the Nazi regime, also known as the “Third Reich.”
However, while Adolf Hitler’s brilliant theory that a criminal dictatorship can be excused on principle because it constructed roads and bridges is perhaps debatable, it is also demonstrably false. Hitler neither invented nor built the first autobahn, even though Nazi propaganda said otherwise. The notion of the autobahn had already existed during the period of the Weimar Republic. This makes sense, as it would take a long time to organize and launch such a massive undertaking.
On September 23, 1933—over six months after becoming Reich Chancellor—Hitler began construction of the “Reichsautobahn,” connecting Frankfurt and Heidelberg by way of Darmstadt and Mannheim. A lot of propaganda was produced, hailing the “Führer” as the brains behind the first person to construct this groundbreaking technology.
However, the future German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, was previously the Lord Mayor of Cologne, and the first section of the autobahn, from Cologne to Bonn, was opened to the public on his watch in 1932. This road used to be a highway, but the Nazi regime changed it to a rural road.
2- Hitler Led the Economy Out of the Crisis
Germans burning their worthless money in the economic crisis during the Weimar Republic.
Another Nazi myth that had a lasting impact is related to the construction of the first autobahns. The Nazis claimed that building the autobahns would provide employment for the large number of unemployed people, thereby helping the German people to regain access to income and food during the global economic crisis. However, this was a false claim made by the Nazis.
The global economic crisis started at the end of the 1920s, which was responsible for the loss of employment for large segments of the population. In 1932, there were approximately 12 million working Germans, compared to more than 6 million unemployed. The Nazi regime gained immense power during this time of turmoil. The Nazi Party had a meteoric rise in the polls during the 1930 and 1932 Reichstag elections.
The Economy Began to Recover Even Before the Nazi Regime Took Hold
In fact, after the fall of 1932, there were the first signals of economic recovery. According to current research, the seasonal increase in the unemployment rate was not as severe as it had been in past years, especially in the fall and winter.
Almost immediately, the NSDAP saw a severe drop in support at the November 1932 election. In reality, Hitler’s popularity had been on the decline for some time prior to his recommendation as Reich Chancellor by former Chancellor Franz von Papen, banker Kurt Freiherr von Schröder, and leaders of Rhineland-Palatinate heavy industry to Reich President Paul von Hindenburg. On January 30, 1933, the latter officially swore him into office.
The German economy was already on the mend when the Nazis took control. Afterward, the Nazis claimed all the glory for the country’s booming economy. The Nazis’ favorite device for claiming credit for the economy was really a Weimar-era invention: job-creation schemes. The idea was conceived by Kurt von Schleicher, the last Chancellor of the German Democratic Republic, with the primary goal of combating unemployment.
Without the War, Nazi Germany Would Have Been Bankrupt
Hitler temporarily continued to manage the programs implemented by von Schleicher’s specialists, but he now carried out these tasks in a more public manner. The current research indicates that the highly publicized construction of highways had a minimal impact. At any given time, there were never more than 130,000 people working on highway construction.
Magnus Brechtken, who is Deputy Director of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich and Berlin, says that the large-scale rearmament of the Reichswehr was “far more important” for the steady drop in unemployment.
However, the Nazis spent significantly more money on this than the state did. Rearmament was paid for with borrowed funds. “Without the commencement of the war in 1939, Germany would have gone bankrupt shortly after,” the historian explains.
Women Had to Give Up Their Jobs for Men
By discouraging women from seeking employment, the Nazi regime was able to make unemployment appear lower than it actually was. It was a lie, but it helped spread the idea that the Third Reich had a good program for finding jobs.
3- Women Were Highly Valued During the Nazi Era
Certificate of the Cross of Honour of the German Mother during World War II.
“There is no greater nobility for a woman than to be the mother of the sons and daughters of a people.” This Adolf Hitler quote from May 9–15, 1938, is illustrative of the Nazi idealization of women.
The women under the Nazi regime were urged to have as many children as possible so that the “Aryan race” would continue to exist and, if the children were boys, they could fight for the “Führer.” Ultimately, the Nazi government considered women exclusively as childbearing machines. The Nazis established a veritable religion around the “German mother.”
They began celebrating Mother’s Day as a religious holiday in 1934, one year after declaring it a national holiday the previous year (1933). And in 1938, in the run-up to the war, Hitler issued a decree endowing the “Cross of Honor of the German Mother,” to be bestowed on women with at least four children.
During World War II, millions of German women were honored with this medal, which varied in quality from bronze to gold based on the number of children they had.
They Were Thrown Out of the Labor Market
In order to be able to commit themselves entirely to their position as mothers, working women were to exit the labor market, which at the same time opened up employment for jobless males. The Nazi regime intended to attain this result, and they intended to do it in part through propaganda. In addition, the Nazi regime passed laws that made it nearly impossible for most women to ever work.
However, the Nazi dictatorship could not sustain its ideology in the long run. Because military rearmament required an increasing number of people in the later years. Until October 1937, a woman’s ability to work outside the home was considered when deciding whether or not to grant a newlywed couple a loan for household expenses.
The Nazis Considered Emancipation to Be an Invention of the “Jewish Mind”
Under National Socialism, there was no way that women were regarded with respect. The fact that they only made up a tiny fraction of the NSDAP ranks was another evidence of their lesser significance for the Nazis.
95% of the Nazi Party members in 1933, for instance, were men. However, women were not meant to vote since the Nazi regime saw liberation as the product of the “Jewish mind.” Instead, the women were expected to put the needs of the “national society” (Volksgemeinschaft) ahead of their own and devote themselves fully to motherhood.
4- Hitler Was Particularly Fond of Children
Hitler Youth members give the Nazi salute at a rally at the Lustgarten in Berlin, 1933.
Children were the future of the German Reich, destined to either increase the “Volksgemeinschaft” by procreating in large numbers to ensure the Reich’s survival or spread the German language and culture over the world as soldiers. Children were heavily featured in Nazi propaganda. In fact, the Nazi government specifically went after children to turn them into extremists.
The following generation was taught that National Socialism represented the zenith of Germany’s development. In geography classes, the German government used maps to show that foreign territories were part of the German national territory. This was done so that even the youngest students would understand that Germany had a right to these areas. Topics in the classroom changed to include “theories of racial heredity” and the rising expense of healthcare for the elderly and the crippled.
Future NSDAP leaders could attend prestigious schools like the National Political Institutes of Education (“Napolas”) or Adolf Hitler Schools (AHS). Indoctrination was strengthened in these schools. The 2009 film “Herrenkinder” (“Children of the Master Race”) serves as a vivid example of how the experiences in these educational institutions continued to impact many pupils even after 1945.
The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls
National Socialism’s influence over adolescents and teenagers extended well beyond the classroom. All boys and girls turning ten in Germany after 1939 were forced to join the “Jungvolk” or “Jungmädelbund,” and those turning fourteen were required to join the “Hitler Youth” or “League of German Girls.”
They were intended to intentionally remove children from the influence of their parents in order for them to be trained in the spirit of the racial Nazism philosophy. This often led to big fights within the family, especially if one or both parents were Christians.
Hitler reiterated this point in his address at Reichenberg on December 2, 1938, saying:
These boys and girls enter our organizations [at] ten years of age, and often for the first time get a little fresh air; after four years of the Young Folk, they go on to the Hitler Youth, where we have them for another four years… And even if they are still not complete National Socialists, they go to the Labor Service and are smoothed out there for another six to seven months. And whatever class consciousness or social status might still be left… the Wehrmacht [German armed forces] will take care of that.
The final statement expresses an especially pessimistic outlook on the war’s final year. Children born in the second half of the 1920s were particularly vulnerable, as they began their formal education immersed in Nazi propaganda.
Children and teens who the Nazi dictatorship thought were “not worth living,” like Jews, Sinti, Roma, and people with mental or physical disabilities, had been killed by the Nazis for a long time.
In the name of “euthanasia,” at least 5,000 children have been killed. The concept that the Nazi leadership cared about children in any way is one of the biggest lies told about National Socialism.
5- Hitler Eliminated Crime
An undated photograph of Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgarden.
Another argument that is often used to defend the “Third Reich” is that Hitler was able to keep some kind of order and discipline, and that crime was almost nonexistent during the Nazi dictatorship. As with all Nazi propaganda that tries to sound real, there is some truth in this claim.
The National Socialists turned Nazi Germany into a totalitarian police state that spied on its population. The people of the country were not only subject to the police and the Gestapo, but also to the Blockleiter (Block Warden).
Under the Nazis, Violence Came Mainly from the Police and Gestapo
People under the Nazi regime exercised strict self-control “since everyone had to worry about being accused,” historian Magnus Brechtken argues. A system of monitoring and intimidation existed. Many Germans, therefore, would not have broken the law or done other things they would have done in a freer society.
The Nazi regime made up data to give the impression that everything was safe and in order when, in reality, it wasn’t. However, under the Nazi administration, many Germans were subjected to more widespread brutality than they had ever seen before. This time, however, the threat came from the state itself.
The War Made German Society More Brutal
Nazi propaganda publicly lauded the March 1933 establishment of the Dachau concentration camp. The goal of the facility was to rehabilitate those labeled “vermin of the people” (Volksschädling) into “good people’s comrades.” If they made it out of the concentration camp alive, the captives had to remain quiet about their experiences there. In doing so, they would have discredited the propaganda.
When war broke out, every remaining sense of safety or order vanished along with it. From 1939 on, there was a dramatic surge in violent crime. The conflict led to a gradual and energizing disintegration of the bounds of violence. Fanatical Nazis did horrible things in the last months of the Third Reich, not just to POWs and survivors of concentration camps but also to “regular” Germans who worked with the enemy or refused to fight until the “ultimate victory.”
6- The Nazi Regime Treated Workers in a Compassionate Manner
Travelers aboard a Kraft durch Freude (Strength Through Joy) cruise enjoying an orchestra performance. Source: Wilhelm Walther.
The Nazi regime placed a premium on the support of the working class. Nothing could be rearmed or gained in the battle without them. Although the bulk of workers have historically been more loyal to the Social Democrats and the Communists, therefore, the Nazi administration needed to court their support. This is why the Nazis put so much stock in portraying themselves as the vanguard of the fight against joblessness; in contrast to the other parties, who, according to their propaganda, had failed to achieve this goal.
The Nazis Turned May Day Into a Propaganda Show
To pacify the working class, the Nazi leadership declared May 1 a public holiday as early as the first week of April 1933. This holiday did not require any cost to the employee and appeared to fill a long-standing chasm in the labor movement. However, the Nazi regime reinterpreted the meaning of May 1, using it to hold marches and rallies celebrating the “Volksgemeinschaft” (the national community), and excluding groups such as Jews, homosexuals, and individuals with mental illness.
Trade Unions Were Destroyed, and Officials Were Imprisoned
On May 2, 1933, the Nazi dictatorship finally demonstrated its true feelings for a free workforce. The homes of the Free Trade Unions were invaded by SA and Nazi trade unionists, their assets were stolen, and their top officials were imprisoned and abused. By the summer, the Nazis had broken up every other union and put its members into the German Labor Front.
The Myth of Kraft durch Freude (Strength Through Joy)
The “Strength Through Joy” organization contributed considerably to the perception that the powerful cared about their workers by giving low-cost vacations and other sorts of amusement. The deed, however, was not performed out of compassion or to do something kind for others.
It was more about keeping the so-called “Aryan race” healthy and increasing labor efficiency, notably in the arms industry. No one whom the Nazis deemed to be an outsider was eligible for any of the benefits. Also, during the war years, all people who were called “Volksschädling” (“human pests”) could have been persecuted, sent away, or even killed.
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.
