Big Caesars and Little Caesars: How They Rise and How They Fall - From Julius Caesar to Boris Johnson

by Ferdinand Mount

A WATERSTONES BOOK OF THE YEAR

Who said that dictatorship was dead? The world today is full of Strong Men and their imitators. Caesarism is alive and well. Yet in modern times it's become a strangely neglected subject. Ferdinand Mount opens up a fascinating exploration of how and why Caesars seize power and why they fall.

"Fast paced and impassioned" -- Sunday Telegraph

"Wonderfully wry" -- The Guardian

"...a delight" -- Sunday Times

"Delicious work, beautifully and acerbically written" -- Wall Street Journal


There is a comforting illusion shared by historians and political commentators from Fukuyama back to Macaulay, Mill and Marx, that history progresses in a nice straight line towards liberal democracy or socialism, despite the odd hiccup.

In reality, every democracy, however sophisticated or stable it may look, has been attacked or actually destroyed by a would-be Caesar, from Ancient Greece to the present day. Marx was wrong. This Caesarism is not an absurd throwback, it is an ever-present danger.

There are Big Caesars who set out to achieve total social control and Little Caesars who merely want to run an agreeable kleptocracy without from Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell through Napoleon and Bolivar, to Mussolini, Salazar, De Gaulle and Trump. The saga of Boris Johnson and Brexit frequently crops up in this author's narrative as a vivid, if Lilliputian instance of the same phenomenon.

The final part of this book describes how and why would-be Caesars come to grief, from the Gunpowder Plot to Trump's march on the Capitol and the ejection of Boris Johnson by his own MPs, and ends with a defence of the grubby glories of parliamentary politics and a thought-provoking roadmap of the way back to constitutional government.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, World History, Biography

305 pages, Kindle Edition

Published July 20, 2023

About the author

Ferdinand Mount was born in 1939. For many years he was a columnist at the Spectator and then the Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times. In between, he was head of the Downing Street Policy Unit and then editor of the Times Literary Supplement. He is now a prize-winning novelist and author of, most recently, the bestselling memoir Cold Cream. He lives in London.

Reviews

[Max Ohnesorge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some thoughts:

- when are we going to be done ragging on poor old frank fukayama? Poor guy never hears the end of it.
- Ferdinand certainly has a bone to pick with Boris Johnson. Beyond just the obnoxious rhetoric, disastrous policy choices, etc. It seems like he actually hates the guy on a personal level.
- mount really shines writing on the historical coups. Especially the gunpowder plot.
- and the highlight of the whole book for me: a highly entertaining retelling of the Catalline (perhaps misspelled) rebellion.
- mount is clearly knows political philosophy on a very deep level. His discussion of Machiavelli especially gets at what is really important in the prince. At some points, however, he seems to be just philosopher name dropping for the sake of it. Like why even bring up Strauss.

[Jacob Stelling · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting topic, but this book was the result of an ill-defined premise which fails to establish a coherent argument or narrative which runs throughout the book.

The section on dictatorship as an abstract concept was enjoyable, but from the section of failed coups it felt as though the author lost his way and instead decided to write a fairly standard account of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump and the threats to democracy.

Overall this book had potential and some areas such as comparative studies of dictatorship did perform well, but a stronger focus was needed or at least a thread for the reader to follow.

[Rajiv Chopra · Rating 4 out of 5]

BIG CAESARS, LITTLE CAESARS
The world of politics changes all the time. Democracies rise and fall, as do oligarchs, tyrants, demagogues, kings, queens, and rulers. Was Caesar a dictator, demagogue, or tyrant? He possessed elements of these three types of rulers. We remember him as a conquering general, and when we dramatize ‘The Ides of March,’ we castigate Brutus and the senate for their treachery. Yet, Ferdinand Mount explained, Caesar was ruthless in breaking the law when he needed money for his campaigns: he raided the treasury, containing cash for emergencies. He put down his rivals with brute force and wrote most of his history.
These are just three elements common to most dictators (from now on, I will use the word, dictator, for simplicity). Dictators, or Caesars, create the conditions for their rise, allow no other claimant to the throne to rise, write the narrative that suits them, break or bend the laws when it suits them, fill institutions with their puppets, and undermine them.
Ferdinand Mount divided the book into several sections: characteristics of Caesars, their rise, and their fall. He distinguished between ‘Big Caesars’ (successful and with maximum impact) and ‘Little Caesars.’ He did not follow a chronological order when writing the book, being consistent with concepts. Some readers may consider this approach confusing, but drawing examples from different leaders and epochs to illustrate concepts is logical.
The last section is the longest, and while the examples are fascinating, Ferdinand Mount did not highlight the concepts or factors for the fall of these Caesars. While describing Hitler’s fall after the ‘Beer Hall Putsch,’ he stopped, whereas Hitler’s final fall happened at the end of World War II. Ferdinand did not illustrate the continued influence of people like Hitler or the Caesars. He missed an opportunity.
I don’t understand how the Cato Street and Guy Fawkes examples fit the narrative.
Also, the examples of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump are incomplete. They lost their positions but are not out of public life. The two men continue to influence politics in their respective countries. The author’s distaste for these two men is evident, but I believe he should maintain a neutral tone throughout the book.
You can ignore these weaknesses because the book is otherwise excellent, provides deep insight, and helps you understand how Caesars operate, the factors for their rise, and the reasons for their eventual failure.
In the end, most end in the proverbial flame.

[Paul Fitzpatrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting analysis of the populism of figures ranging from Hitler, Johnson and Trump. It is clear that democracy is under attack like never before - the use of short slogans to whip up the masses was canvassed by Hitler and is the technique now employed by Trump.
This is not not a light read.

[David Cutler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ferdinand Mount is a superb writer. Alongside a masterful eye for the telling detail is good story telling whether the period is antiquity or today. It is hard to tell if he despises Oliver Cromwell or Boris Johnson more (and I found his carpet bombing of Oliver Cromwell extremely effective). Although always laced with humour this is a telling account of how much we and other nations are in danger of losing and how fragile some of our institutions and legal protections are becoming.

[Mr Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great to draw parallels through a 2000 year arc of history. In the concept of "big" and "little" Caesars Mount has - at last - found a way to compare Hitler to Brexiteers and Trump without hysterics or false similarities. There IS a playbook for popularists and trashers of due process; and this is it.

[Ralph Burton · Rating 3 out of 5]

As Ferdinand Mount went to Eton, it boggles the mind this book sometimes reads either like a self-published screed against Boris Johnson or the transcript of a late night bar rant against the same
man. The book sews together in a grand conspiratorial tapestry Oliver Cromwell, Indira Gandhi, Julius Caesar, Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, all to make for damning, but really, accidentally self-revealing, case against Boris Johnson. The book’s title may have “Caesar” written down three times but Boris is mentioned far more than any Roman emperor.

I feel at this point that I have to lay my cards on the table and say that, while never being a great fan of Boris Johnson, he was certainly a lot better than some of the other names mentioned above. UK democracy may not be functioning as well as we would like, but it is certainly functioning a lot better than Indira Gandhi’s India under Emergency or, obviously, Nazi Germany. That Mount returns so often and without fail to Boris Johnson, dedicating three successive chapters to him (while Hitler and Trump only get one chapter apiece, and some despots, like Pinochet and Franco, are never mentioned) serves only to cheapen his argument. In a twist of the tale, the Eton-educated, Oxbridge author ends up sounding like another bloke on the internet, comparing an politician they don’t like to Hitler. Although, in a touch of private school, they use thinly-sketched readings of Cicero and Plato to make this point; an aspect you probably wouldn’t find on Reddit.

That’s not to say there aren’t bright spots. Mount does have an understanding of history, even if his Cromwell chapter is paradoxically kind to Charles the I (only for a later chapter to make the case against the royal). His chapter on Hitler is sobering, an account of what a true monster and a true scoundrel looks like.

[Benj · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting description of Caesarism throughout the ages; successful coups and some that failed, and how, in most cases, the internal contradictions of their rule (not so much 'campaign in poetry, govern in prose' as 'campaign in bombast. don't care much for the actual governing') eventually brought them down.

I must admit, I'd never thought of Cromwell's dissolution of the Long Parliament as a coup, but of course that was exactly what it was.

It's interesting that Mount, who was a policy advisor to Thatcher and a committed Tory, has utter contempt for and anger against modern conservatives such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.

[Jaqui Lane]

A fascinating and entertaining book.
There are SO many traits the 'caesars' of this book have in common.
It looks at Caesar, Napoleon, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.
While the author could have picked a lot more the character traits, behaviours and actions of these four are so similar despite the timespan separating them.
Worth a read especially given the shift towards more autocrats and dictators.

[Theo Kokonas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great read. I've read a couple of books by this author and this doesn't fail to deliver.
Fascinating insights into the parallels between the different Cesars over the course of time. Well worth a read.

[Ben Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the most incredible book I’ve ever read. Some really interesting bits and some really engaging chapters. I really struggled on some of the other chapters.

[kp · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*

[Sam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Perfectly fine but learnt little.
(Received as gift a few years ago).

[Pippa Peters-Cheale · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting topic drawing parallels between historic and modern “Caesars” - found the arguments could have been tighter

[Tom Routledge · Rating 2 out of 5]

All points made in the opening of each chapter, then meandering. Also, so weirdly paced and structured.