Assassination

Miles Hudson

• Publisher: Pen & Sword Military
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN: 9781848843639
• eBook ISBN: 9781844683468
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military Biographies
• Index: History

The assassination of political, religious and military leaders, often dictators, is frequently seen as the short cut to solving a particular problem. The author takes issue with this argument. Examining a series of linked assassinations together with their causes and effects, he seeks to demonstrate that in many cases the killings have produced unforeseen and unintended consequences that all too often result in the opposite result to that desired. His case studies, arranged intriguingly in pairs, cover such diverse characters as Julius Caesar and Thomas Becket, Gandhi and Jesus Christ, Tsar Alexander II and Abraham Lincoln, Michael Collins and Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, and Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.This is an absorbing, controversial and informative study.

Chapter One

Julius Caesar / Thomas à Becket

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to visualize the context of Becket’s life 850 years ago, let alone that of Julius Caesar after two millennia. There is much contemporary or near contemporary evidence in both cases but beliefs, assumptions and codes of behaviour have changed vastly since then, quite apart from the massive advances in scientific knowledge. It is too easy, and can be very misleading, to project oneself into their times and expect to understand why, and how, they did what they did. But human nature does not change all that much and there are some certainties about both men. They were both assassinated because some of their contemporaries thought that they were becoming, or indeed had become, too big for their boots. The scale of their achievements and their importance to world history are, of course, very different: Caesar, near master of the known world of his day; Becket, thorn in the flesh of Henry II, King of England. But those who assassinated them, in both cases, hoped to achieve significant changes – in Caesar’s case to halt the slide towards dictatorship and return power to the Senate; in Becket’s case to help the monarch in his attempt to redraw the boundaries between Church and State. As we shall see in both cases the assassinations failed in their purpose and, in both cases, the assassins were repudiated by many, if not all, of their contemporaries.

Both men certainly were arrogant, ruthless, opinionated, ambitious and in their own different ways very powerful characters. Whether they were ambitious solely for themselves or whether, and to what extent, they had philanthropic motives, is a matter for debate, and this can be argued both ways. As already mentioned, there are vast differences between the two: Caesar was a soldier, politician and statesman; Thomas à Becket a trusted and very powerful civil servant and Archbishop. However, their deaths were broadly similar. Both were struck down by their own nationals in the centre of their respective worlds – the Roman Senate (with daggers) and Canterbury Cathedral (with swords). These were dramatic events indeed, so much so that both have been marked by major dramas by great English playwrights.

* * *

Gaius Julius Caesar was probably born on 12 July 102 BC, although the precise year is not known. He came from an aristocratic or patrician family that claimed legendary descent from Iulus, the grandson of Venus. His great grandfather on his father’s side claimed descent from the fourth king of Rome. On his mother’s side was Lucius Aurelius Cotta and his son of the same name, both of whom were consuls (in 144 and 119 BC respectively). The most famous of Caesar’s relations was, however, not a blood relation. Caius Marius, the son of a poor farmer, married Caesar’s Aunt Julia – the sister of his father. Marius was a highly successful soldier in North Africa and was elected consul on no fewer than seven occasions.

Rome had become a republic in 509 BC, having expelled its seventh king, Targuinius Superbus, whose reign had been an unmitigated disaster. This had led to an endemic hatred of monarchy, which was to play its part in Julius Caesar’s assassination. The basic system of a Citizens’ Assembly modelled on the Greek city-state was clearly not suitable to rule over what was becoming an empire. The result was the bloody turmoil of the final two hundred years of the Roman Republic. Cynical manipulation, bribery, debauching of the electorate, patronage and factional rivalries inexorably moved events on to a series of skirmishes, producing dictator figures who still ruled under the fig leaf of the old democratic forms and titles. There was a continuous struggle for power between the patricians who mostly claimed descent from the original people whom Romulus, the first king, had brought to Rome, and the plebeians who were freed slaves or strangers who had come to the city. However, as is so often the case, class distinctions were becoming less rigid. By the time of Caesar’s birth the aristocracy was composed largely of plebeian families with an ancestor who had served Rome well either in the city or elsewhere in the army. The focus of the struggle for power shifted to the rivalry between the Optimates and the Populares. The former believed that the Senate, composed of members of the old and new aristocracy, should have all the power. It represented the wisdom and experience of the past and should rule Rome and its empire. The Populares, on the other hand, believed that the people should have the major influence on all decisions. They derided what they saw as the selfish and corrupt rule of a collection of self-interested, so-called aristocrats. (The basis of this conflict seems to be endemic to mankind. Snobbery, direct and inverse, abounded then as it does now).

Marius, himself of plebeian stock, supported the Populares. A struggle developed between Sulla, an aristocratic consul representing the Optimates, and Marius. Sulla marched on Rome and broke the power of the Populares. He then went to the East where revolts had broken out against the Romans in Asia Minor and Greece. A complicated and bloody period of alternating power ensued in Rome, culminating in the final return of Sulla in 82 BC. He ordered the execution of 1,700 of his opponents including forty senators. Three thousand unfortunate Samnite prisoners who had opposed his return to Rome were also butchered in the Circus Maximus as an entertainment. If this kind of behaviour qualifies as ‘barbarism’, then barbarism existed in full measure in Rome at the time. (The antics of Madame Guillotine and her tricoteuses probably furnished the nearest equivalent in modern times – the gas ovens were hardly ‘entertainment’ – but the scale, horrifying as it was, was very different).

Julius Caesar appeared to have had the normal education of a young Roman of his class and status. This would have included the study of Latin grammar, arithmetic, Greek language, history and philosophy and, later, oratory. He was steeped in Hellenic culture, although his way of thinking was always more Roman than Greek. As a young man he wrote a tragedy and some boyish love songs, which were banned long after his death by Augustus, believing that they would add to Caesar’s fame.

When he was sixteen Caesar married Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna, an arch-enemy of Sulla who, on his return to Rome, ordered Caesar to divorce her. Showing an extraordinary courage, Caesar refused. Surprisingly, Sulla was persuaded to spare his life. But Caesar wisely left Rome to join the staff of the new governor of Asia, Thermus. Like Becket, as we shall see, Caesar was clearly an impressive youth whose bearing, intelligence and energy led to almost immediate preferment.

Caesar’s career now took off. He showed great courage in battle, being decorated with the Civic Crown, the highest award for bravery which Rome could award, and distinguished himself in a diplomatic mission to Nicodemes, the King of Bithynia. On the death of Sulla, Caesar returned to Rome where he flourished as an advocate. However, on a journey to Rhodes he was captured by some pirates and held to ransom for six weeks. He seems to have had a jolly time in captivity, eating and drinking with his captors and promising them with jocularity that when he was freed he would return and crucify them. The ransom was paid and he did indeed return and crucify them, being praised later for his mercy in ordering them to be stabbed to death before being nailed to their respective crosses.

Sulla’s death in 78 BC had led to further turmoil in Rome. Three powerful figures emerged, all of whom were to have a great influence on Caesar’s life – Pompey, Crassus and Cicero, the latter a brilliant orator and boyhood friend who ultimately turned against him. A continuing struggle for power ensued. However, all internal squabbles were swept into the background by a slave revolt led by Spartacus, an escaped gladiator. For two years Spartacus defeated every Roman army sent against him, until Pompey and Crassus between them eliminated the slave insurrection, crucifying Spartacus.

However, Pompey and Crassus were rivals. In their quest for popularity they vied with each other in their extravagant entertainments and banquets for the people. Meanwhile, Caesar managed to get himself elected to a quaestorship (the lowest grade of the magistracy), becoming heavily in debt in the process. A very successful tour in Spain was followed by election as aedile (the third grade of magistracy), for which he staged the biggest gladiatorial show ever, with three hundred pairs of combatants dressed in silver armour. Like Becket, in his youth he flaunted wealth. Not surprisingly, his indebtedness increased as a result. He was then elected pontifex maximus (chief priest), defeating the Optimates candidate. This was followed by his election as praetor (the magistrate next to consul in seniority) and his return to Spain as governor in 61 BC. He became consul in 60 BC and formed a triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, under which he brought in a number of much-needed agrarian and administrative reforms. He then left for his remarkable period in Gaul, during which he won victory after victory – immortalized in his books, to the delight of scholars and the dismay of generations of schoolboys. He established Roman rule over the whole of France and Belgium and parts of Switzerland, Holland and Germany, invading Britain twice in the process. It has been estimated that during Caesar’s campaigns 1,192,000 of his enemies were killed.¹

Crassus was immensely rich, even by Roman standards. However, he suffered, from vanity. He wished to become a great military figure like Pompey and Caesar – the comparatively simple matter of defeating Spartacus had not satisfied him. He determined to attack Parthia, the only power that could confront Rome and hope to win. He took an army with him, paid for out of his own pocket, and marched to his death and that of many of his soldiers in a futile invasion of Parthia in 53 BC. Pompey became the sole consul in Rome, with the Optimates in firm control.

It was clear to Caesar that he and Pompey would not be able to co-exist. He decided that he would have to fight for his position and, with his army, he crossed the River Rubicon in northern Italy on his way back to Rome, thus breaking the inviolable rule that generals should leave their armies behind them when approaching Rome. This was a massive affront to the Senate and a decisive step towards civil war, with Caesar championing the Populares against Pompey’s Optimates. He defeated Pompey, who escaped to Egypt but was subsequently murdered. Caesar entered Rome and held a series of triumphs. Four hundred lions were hunted to death in the Circus (it must have been a massive task getting them there) and gladiators fought each other not only individually but in groups. A naval battle was staged and as a grand finale in the Circus Maximus two armies composed of war captives and condemned criminals – a thousand foot, two hundred horse and twenty elephants on either side – fought each other to the death.² When the last triumph had been celebrated, the populace was entertained at a feast for which 22,000 tables were laid and after it Caesar was escorted to his house by much of the populace and twenty elephants carrying torchbearers.

Not content with this bonanza, Caesar then went to Egypt, where he won yet more victories and confirmed Cleopatra as queen of Egypt. He went on to Judaea (Palestine), where he enjoyed a further military triumph. Rather belatedly – having been delayed perhaps by Cleopatra’s charms – he then returned to Rome. The Optimates were still holding out in North Africa, however, and Caesar now set off for the North African coast with 3,000 foot soldiers and 150 cavalry, winning yet another massive victory at Thapsus.

Caesar did not return to Italy until July 46 BC. On his triumphal reappearance he was made dictator for ten years and a mass of honours was heaped upon him. He was decreed a thanksgiving of fifty days and a temple of liberty was ordered to be built at public cost. Although ostensibly resisting it, he was virtually deified and swamped the Senate with his supporters, increasing its membership from six hundred to nine hundred. He then set about a whole mass of reforms, proclaiming a general amnesty, pardoning nearly all of his enemies and promoting many. He ordered the rebuilding of Carthage and Corinth, abolished the existing tax system and appointed commissioners to carry out the allotment of land for his discharged veterans. He also projected the establishment of colonies in what had in effect become an empire for those Romans who wished to settle there. For the year 44 BC he selected Mark Antony as his partner in the Consulate, in spite of his dissatisfaction with Mark Antony’s performance as his deputy during his absence abroad. He clearly valued loyalty above efficiency as, disastrously, have many other leaders throughout history.

In addition, he ordered the digging of a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth and in Italy a canal was to be dug from the Tiber near Rome to Tarracina in order to drain the Pontine Marshes. A new trunk road was planned from the Adriatic over the Apennines to the Tiber valley. Meanwhile the whole of Greek and Roman literature was to be collected in one vast library and the whole body of civil law was to be unified in one work. As with Napoleon, his influence seemed to reach into every corner of national life.

As a result of all this he was granted the title of father of his country; his birthday was declared a public holiday; statues of him were to be set up in all the temples of Rome; the month of his birth was to be renamed Julius (July); his dictatorship was extended for life; his son, or adopted son, was to be designated pontifex maximus, a veiled recognition of hereditary monarchy, and all senators swore an oath that they were ready to protect his life. His future governmental actions were declared valid in advance; every four years games were to be held in his honour; during all gladiatorial games in Rome and Italy one day was to be dedicated to Caesar; he was given a golden chair and a golden wreath adorned with jewels for the games; what was considered to be his divine image was to receive a holy resting place like other deities. The one honour which he refused, with what some considered to be mock modesty, was the title of rex (king). Supreme power undoubtedly rested in Caesar’s hands and he was fully aware of this. The power of the Optimates and indeed of the Senate itself appeared to be broken for ever.

Caesar was a remarkable man by any standards. He had great restless energy and inspired total devotion in his various armies.

He was intelligent, decisive, brave, unpredictable and imaginative in his military campaigns. He could be ruthless and thought nothing of ordering thousands of his enemies to be slaughtered but he could be very forgiving when he deemed it to be in his interests. He was a master of intrigue and had a magnetic personality with boundless egoism. He was prepared to flatter, even to grovel, when it suited him. He was also a generous patron of the arts and wrote surprisingly well himself. A leader to his fingertips, he was contemptuous of the old guard of the Senate and determined to reform a system that had failed to give stability. He was arrogant, versatile, determined and brilliantly successful, establishing Rome as the centre of Europe. There can be few, if any, other men in world history with such a record of achievements. However, many of his contemporaries were vastly jealous of him and he was assassinated at the zenith of his power.

* * *

Thomas Becket (known as Thomas à Becket) was born in AD 1118. His background was what would, in France until perhaps recently, be called the haute-bourgeoisie. His mother was a native of Caen. His father came from Rouen, but emigrated to London before Thomas was born; he became a prosperous merchant and at one time was sheriff of London. Thomas was educated in London and then in Paris. He returned to England aged twenty-two and served as clerk and accountant to a rich businessman. He was, clearly, an outstanding young man and Theobald, the Archbishop of Canterbury, took him into his household. He obtained the confidence of the primate and accompanied him on a visit to Rome and to the Council of Rheims in AD 1148. He gained a number of valuable livings as a clerk in holy orders and after being ordained deacon became archdeacon of Canterbury, a position of some power and authority. On Theobald’s recommendation, Henry II appointed him as Chancellor of England. At this stage he still had not been ordained as a priest.

Henry II was only twenty-one years old when he became King of England. He was the grandson of Henry I by his daughter Matilda.

On Henry I’s death, the Norman barons who exerted power in England bypassed Matilda and crowned his nephew, Stephen, as King. Stephen attempted to crown his son Eustace as the future king but Theobald refused to sanction it, a refusal which would later have a fateful echo.

Civil war broke out between Matilda and Stephen, which was only really resolved on Stephen’s death and his succession by Henry II. Henry himself was more French than English. He was born in Normandy, reared in France and spoke Norman French rather than English. Most of his life was spent on the continent and England comprised only a part of his empire, which included Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Poitou and Aquitaine, with sovereign claims over Toulouse, Wales and Scotland.³ On Thomas’s appointment as Chancellor, he and Henry became firm friends, jointly indulging in their passion for hunting. They began to deal with the abuses that had grown up during the years of civil war. A large number of mercenaries had found their way into England and their presence was the cause of much disorder. Henry decreed that they should leave, and they did. Furthermore the barons and bishops had built a number of unlicensed castles and these were all pulled down. Within six months law and order, which had largely broken down, was restored; ‘the fields were cultivated and the valleys were thick with com, the pastures full of oxen and the folds of sheep’.⁴ It was a remarkable achievement for two young men inexperienced in government. Henry Il’s energy was prodigious. Among many other reforms during his reign he established a system of circuit courts and juries, which, although much amended, is still in place today.

As Chancellor, Becket was chief officer of the royal chapel. He was in charge of the Great Seal and all important documents passed through his hands. He had a finger in every pie and being very close to the king was showered with gifts by those hoping to obtain favours. He was in a position to obtain money from church preferments and a number of other sources, and did so. In short, apart from the King, he was probably the most powerful man in England.

Becket had a love of luxury and ostentatious wealth similar to that of Julius Caesar. Like Caesar, he was both a brave and successful leader in war, fighting on Henry’s behalf in the south of France, and a successful diplomat. Henry sent him to France to negotiate with the French king, Louis VII,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Julius Caesar / Thomas à Becket
• 2. Mahatma Gandhi / Jesus Christ
• 3. Jean Paul Marat / Leon Trotsky
• 4. Lord Frederick Cavendish / Archduke Franz Ferdinand
• 5. Tsar Alexander II / Abraham Lincoln
• 6. Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson / Michael Collins
• 7. King Abdullah / Anwar Sadat / Yitzhak Rabin
• 8. Hendrik Verwoerd / Martin Luther King / Malcolm X
• Conclusion
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Index