Caesar was doubtful, resisting their eagerness and enthusiasm, yelling out that he did not approve of fighting by a reckless onslaught, and holding back the line again and again, when suddenly on the right wing a tubicen [trumpeter], without orders from Caesar, but encouraged by the soldiers, began to sound his instrument. This was repeated by all the cohorts, the line began to advance against the enemy, although the centurions placed themselves in front and vainly tried to restrain the soldiers by force and stop them attacking without orders from the general.
When Caesar perceived that it was impossible to restrain the soldiers' roused spirits, he gave the watchword `Good Luck' [Felicitas], and spurred his horse at the enemy front ranks.'9
The confidence of the army proved justified, for the Pompeians failed to cope with this sudden attack and were quickly routed. Plutarch presents another version of the story in which he claimed that as the battle was about to begin Caesar felt an epileptic fit coming on and had to be taken away to shelter, hence the confused start to the advance. There are very few stories of specific epileptic attacks suffered by Caesar, and this is the only one that claims that his epilepsy interfered with his ability to command.20
The elephants attacking Caesar's right flank were panicked by the hail of missiles from his skirmishers and stampeded back through their own lines. The whole Pompeian left wing soon collapsed and all attempts at rallying the army failed in the face of a ferocious pursuit. Caesar's legionaries were in a grim mood and killed more freely than they had done after Pharsalus. They wanted the war over and had no wish to see men being pardoned and let free to fight them again. Caesar himself had already ordered the execution of one Pompeian whom he had pardoned during the surrender in Spain in 49 BC, but who had now been captured for a second time. This was his normal policy, forgiving a man once but killing him if he had chosen to continue fighting in spite of this pardon. At Thapsus his soldiers had no concern for such distinctions and many Pompeians died as they tried to surrender. The legionaries even cut down several of Caesar's own officers when they tried to stop the killing. By the end of the day 10,000 Pompeians had been killed for little more than fifty casualties on Caesar's side. The main enemy leaders escaped, but most would die in the following weeks. Afranius and Sulla's son Faustus were captured by Sittius and handed over to Caesar, who then had them executed, in response to the clamour of his soldiers. A few other prisoners were executed but in some cases - for instance, that of Lucius Caesar, the son of his cousin and legate - it is unclear whether he ordered the deaths or whether the decision was taken by his subordinates. Petreius and King Juba arranged a somewhat bizarre suicide pact, fighting a duel to the death. The versions of the outcome vary from source to source, but the most likely seems to have been that the Roman killed the Numidian, and then with the help of a slave ran himself through. Metellus Scipio escaped by sea, but killed himself when his ships were intercepted by a pursuing Caesarean squadron. Of the few who escaped, Labienus managed to make his way to Spain where he joined up with Pompey's sons Cnaeus and Sextus.u
Cato was in command of the city of Utica throughout the African campaign and so had not been present at the defeat. Indeed it is striking how minor a role he played in the military operations in the entire Civil War. Fugitives soon brought news of the disaster and word that Caesar's men would soon arrive. Cato consulted with the Romans in the city, three hundred of whom he had formed into a council, but realised that whatever their resolve there was little prospect of continuing to fight. The choice then became either to flee, to surrender or to commit suicide. After dinner, which since Pharsalus he had refused to eat reclining in the proper manner and so had taken sitting down, he retired to his chamber. (It was not the first such gesture he had made, for he is supposed to have refused to be shaved or have his hair cut once the Civil War began.) He complained when he noticed that his son and servants had removed his sword, and insisted that they return it, but then went back to his reading. His choice of work was significant, Plato's Phaedo, a discussion of the immortality of the soul, but throughout his life he had pursued the study of philosophy. Finally, without warning, he stopped reading, took up his sword and stabbed himself in the stomach. The wound was bad, but not immediately mortal, and once they heard the commotion his son and slaves rushed to him. A doctor was brought and Cato's wound cleaned and bound up. However, he had never lacked determination or courage, and once they had gone the forty-eight-year-old tore open the stitches and began ripping out his own entrails. He was dead before they could restrain him. When Caesar heard the news he said that he bitterly begrudged the opportunity of pardoning his most determined opponent, but to a great extent Cato had acted out of a desire to avoid his enemy's mercy.
Less than three and a half years after crossing the Rubicon most of the leading men who had forced Caesar to take that step were dead, and of the survivors nearly all had given up the fight. The bloodshed was not quite over, for a year later there would be another campaign in Spain, fought with even greater savagery. When the Civil War began his opponents had been wrong to think that Caesar would not fight, and then mistaken to believe that the greater resources under their control meant that their victory was assured. Against the odds, Caesar had won the Civil War and it now remained to be seen whether or not he could win the peace and create a lasting settlement. That was the priority, but first, as in Asia, he had to settle the region. As usual communities that had supported the Pompeians were subject to punitive fines, while those who had supported him were rewarded. It was probably around this time that he had an affair with Eunoe, the wife of the Moorish King Bogudes. It was not until June that he left Africa, almost five and a half months after he had landed.22
DICTATOR, 46-44 BC
`It is always the same at the end of civil wars, and it is not just the wishes of the victor which are carried through, for he also needs to humour those who have helped him to win.' - Cicero, December 48 BC.'
As victor Caesar returned to the city and, in a way that almost exceeded human belief, pardoned all those who had carried arms against him.' - Velleius Paterculus, eary first century At).'
Caesar reached Rome near the end of July 46 BC. The Senate had already voted him the staggering total of forty days of public thanksgiving for his latest victory - tactfully considered to be over King Juba and not his Roman allies. This was double the number awarded even for the defeat of Vercingetorix. Fourteen years earlier Caesar had given up the right to celebrate a triumph in his quest for the consulship. Now, after weeks of frantic preparation, he celebrated no less than four triumphs, over Gaul, Egypt and the Nile, Asia, and King Juba and Africa. In his long career Pompey had triumphed three times, and it is likely that most were aware that Caesar was now also commemorating victories won on the continents of Europe, Africa and Asia, just as his great rival had done. The celebrations began on 21 September, but were not held on consecutive days and so lasted until 2 October. The scale was lavish, with parades of prisoners, including Vercingetorix, the infant son of Juba, and Cleopatra's sister Arsinoe. The latter is said to have inspired pity in the crowd and she and the boy were spared the fate of the Gaulish war leader, who was ritually strangled at the end of the Gallic triumph in the traditional way. Tradition - certainly recent tradition - was altered in a number of special privileges granted to Caesar. One of the most conspicuous was the right to be preceded by no fewer than seventy-two lictors. A consul was normally attended by a dozen of these men and a dictator by twenty-four, and the number seems to have been intended to show that Caesar had held the latter office three times - six times the number who normally attended a consul and treble the amount given to a dictator. In addition, following precedents found only in the distant past of the Republic, Caesar rode in a chariot pulled by a team of white horses. However, if Suetonius and Dio are to be believed, early on in the first triumph - the one over Gaul - the axle on his chariot broke and he had to finish the procession in a hastily summoned replacement. Perhaps in expiation of this bad ome
n, at the end of the ceremony Caesar climbed on his knees up the steps of the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol. Pliny tells us that Caesar always uttered a magical formula before setting out anywhere in a chariot because of some earlier accident, but clearly this did not have the desired effect on this occasion.'
In each of the processions were carts carrying the spoils taken from the enemy, usually weapons and armour as well as silver, gold and other precious objects. Others mounted placards carrying slogans - including the famous Veni, Vidi, Vici - or lists of achievements. It has often been suggested that Pliny's figure of 1,192,000 enemies killed by Caesar during his campaigns was derived from adding up the numbers of enemy casualties proclaimed during his triumphs. Quantifying victory had always been important for the competitive aristocracy of Rome. Another tradition was to show paintings of notable scenes from the campaigns, and Caesar's triumphs included many of these. Officially he was celebrating the defeat of foreign enemies of the Republic, and there was no mention or depiction of Pompey and Pharsalus. There were said to be pictures of Metellus Scipio stabbing himself to death and Cato tearing open his own wound. The sight provoked groans from the crowd, and has sometimes been seen as crass exultation over the defeat of his enemies that contrasted with his usual emphasis on clemency. Yet the sources do not suggest that the sight encouraged hostility to Caesar, and the reminders of the waste of life and horror of the Civil War were certainly encouragement to accept the new regime simply to avoid further conflict. The soldiers who marched in the procession wearing their decorations and finest equipment certainly had no qualms about causing offence. Long-standing tradition gave them licence to sing not just about their own deeds in the war, but to chant bawdy rhymes at the expense of their commander, for on a day of triumph normal military discipline was relaxed. Caesar's veterans sang of his mistresses in Gaul, claiming that he had squandered on them the funds granted to him by the Republic, and warned the Romans to `lock up their wives' because they brought with them the `bald adulterer'. They joked about how wrongdoing normally brought punishment, but that instead Caesar had made himself master of Rome through defying the Senate. Another verse recalled the old gossip about his time in Bithynia:
This was the only slur that annoyed Caesar and soon afterwards he took a public oath denying that there was any truth in the allegation. Dio says that this only made him look ridiculous.'
In the days between the triumphal processions there were great feasts open to all, with no fewer than 22,000 tables laid out with the finest foods and wines. At nightfall after the final banquet, Caesar walked home in a procession whose progress was illuminated by twenty elephants that carried great torches. There were also theatrical performances, and at one of these he insisted that the famous equestrian playwright Decimus Laberius actually perform on stage. The latter resented this, but obeyed and had the satisfaction when he uttered the line `He whom many fear, must therefore fear many' of seeing the audience all turn to face Caesar. After the performance Laberius was rewarded with 500,000 sestertii and a gold ring to signify restoration to the equestrian status that he had been forced to forfeit by appearing on stage - acting was not considered a proper activity for a wealthy citizen. Apart from the drama, there were sporting and athletic competitions, and - since Caesar finally celebrated the funeral games to Julia he had promised years before - gladiatorial fights. Chariots raced in the Circus, while special temporary venues were constructed for the athletics on the Campus Martius and some of the gladiatorial fights in the Forum. However, the scale of these was so massive that a few combats were staged elsewhere. Five days were devoted to beast fights, in which 400 lions were killed, as were a number of giraffes, animals never seen in Rome before. Apart from the usual matched pairs of gladiators, there was a battle between two armies each composed of 500 men on foot, 30 cavalry and 20 elephants. Another version claims that the twenty elephants and their riders fought each other separately In addition there was a naval battle fought in a specially flooded lake dug on the right bank of the Tiber. All of these celebrations were intended to be bigger and more spectacular than anything Rome had ever seen before.
The city was packed with hordes of people who had come to see the celebrations. Many lived in tents pitched wherever there was open space, and Suetonius claims that a number of people, including two senators, were crushed to death in the crowds that thronged the great events. The cost was staggering, not simply for staging the entertainments and processions, but also through the more direct largesse that accompanied them. At the end of the triumphs Caesar gave 5,000 denarii to each of his soldiers - more than a legionary would earn even if he served a full sixteen-year term in the army. Centurions each got 10,000, while the tribunes and prefects, most of whom were equestrians, received 20,000 apiece. In each case this was probably more than he had promised the men during the Civil War. Yet he also now chose to extend his generosity to the civilian population and especially the poorer inhabitants of Rome, each of whom was given 100 denarii, as well as gifts of wheat and olive oil. Some of the soldiers were angered by this gesture, which they saw as an unnecessary sharing of the wealth that they had earned. Doubtless drink and the atmosphere of holiday also contributed to this discontent, which led to an outbreak of rioting. Caesar had not been willing to back down in the face of mutiny and was no more inclined to do so now. He had one of the rioters led off and executed. Two more were ceremonially beheaded by the college of pontiffs and the Flamen Martialis (the priest of Mars). The ritual, whose precise meaning escapes us, took place on the Campus Martins, but the two heads were taken into the Forum and displayed near the Regia. Order was restored and the period of celebration was overwhelmingly successful. Caesar had always been a good showman and had given thought not only to the displays but also to the comfort of the crowds. At several performances silk awnings were erected to provide shade for the audience.6
REWARDS AND SETTLEMENTS
In general the crowd had delighted in Caesar's triumphs, celebrations and games, although Dio claims that some people were shocked by the scale of the bloodshed during the gladiatorial fights. The dictator's habit of reading letters and dictating to his secretaries while watching these shows was disliked by the people, but gave indication of the sheer amount of business that required his attention. Caesar had not fought the Civil War in order to reform the Republic, and in spite of what Cicero and others later claimed, there is no evidence that he had been aiming at supreme rule for much of his life. He had wanted a second consulship and doubtless had planned a programme of legislation for his twelve-month term of office. Instead, he had - at least in his own mind - been forced to fight the Civil War, and his victory brought him far greater power. His third consulship in 46 BC was followed by a fourth and fifth term in 45 and 44 BC respectively, and for most of this period he was also dictator and had a number of additional rights granted to him by the Senate. He was not in Rome for the entire time, since the last campaign of the Civil War took him to Spain in November 46 Bc and he did not return to Italy until the following summer. This makes the sheer scale and scope of his legislation and reforms all the more astonishing. Caesar was constantly at work and, though his assistants such as Oppius and Balbus clearly undertook a good deal of the detailed work of framing laws, the basic concepts seem always to have been his. Given the comparatively short time period it is unsurprising that some projects were never actually begun, while many more were uncompleted at his death. It is also not always easy to establish what precisely he did do, and even harder to discern his intentions. His assassination was followed by renewed civil war between his partisans and assassins, during which it was clearly in each sides' interest to put forward radically different claims of his long-term aims.
To add to the confusion, the civil wars would finally be ended when Caesar's adopted son Octavian - later named Augustus - became Rome's first emperor. Following the adoption his name was formally Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus. This meant that whether Caesar himself or his adopted son passed
a law or founded a colony, each would be known as a lex Julia or colonia Julia respectively. Therefore, if only the name is preserved without any indication of date, it is often impossible to know which of the two was responsible. It is especially confusing since it is known that in some cases Augustus implemented a design of Caesar's, whereas on other issues his thinking was very different. Detailed discussion of each possible measure introduced by Caesar would require immense space and take us too far from our main purpose. Instead what follows is an overview, concentrating on the more generally accepted acts.'
It is obvious that Caesar wielded immense power, but there has been little consensus amongst scholars about his overall aims. Some would like to see him as a visionary who discerned the problems facing the Republic, realised that its system of government could simply no longer cope with the changed circumstances of empire, and understood that a form of monarchy was the only answer. His plans included not only political change but a radical shift in the relationship between Rome and the rest of Italy, and of both to the provinces. A comment in a letter to Metellus Scipio in 48 BC, that Caesar wanted only `tranquillity for Italy, peace for the provinces, and security for [Roman] power' has sometimes been taken as a clear programme. Critics of this view would instead see it as a vague slogan employed in the midst of civil war. For them Caesar was not a radical reformer or visionary, but a deeply conservative aristocrat who won power in a quest for personal glory and status within the Republic. Motivated by such traditional ambitions, he had little idea of what to do once he took control of Rome. In this view his numerous reforms dealing with such a wide range of different issues were the sign not of a coherent programme, but of the total absence of any broader design. Caesar tinkered with so many things simply because he did not know what to do and instead just kept himself busy, mistaking activity for achievement. Both views are extreme, and most scholars have more reasonably adopted a position somewhere between the two, but before returning to this question it will be useful to review the evidence.'
Caesar: Life of a Colossus Page 63