Titans of History

When I started this project, I tried to divide these characters into good and bad, but I realized that this was futile because many of the greatest—Napoleon, Cromwell, Genghis Khan, Peter the Great, to name just a few—combined the heroic with the monstrous. In this book, I leave it to you to make such judgments. We can go further still: the political and artistic genius of even the most admirable of these characters requires ambition, insensitivity, egocentricity, ruthlessness, even madness, as much it demands decency and heroism. “Reasonable people,” said George Bernard Shaw, “adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people adapt the world to themselves. Therefore change is only possible through unreasonable people.” Greatness needs courage (above all) and willpower, charisma, intelligence and creativity but it also demands characteristics that we often associate with the least admirable people: reckless risk-taking, brutal determination, sexual thrill-seeking, brazen showmanship, obsession close to fixation and something approaching insanity. In other words, the qualities required for greatness and wickedness, for heroism and monstrosity, for brilliant, decent philanthropy and brutal dystopian murderousness are not too far distant from each other. The Norwegians alone have a word for this: stormannsgalskap—the madness of great men.

In the last half-century, many history teachers seemed to enjoy making history as boring as possible, reducing it to the dreariness of mortality rates, tons of coal consumed per household and other economic statistics, but the study of any period in detail shows that the influence of character on events is paramount, whether we are looking at the autocrats of the ancient world or the modern democratic politicians of our own day. In the 21st century, no one who looks at world history after 9/11 would now claim that the character of US President George W Bush was not decisive in its contribution to the momentous decisions that were taken during this period. Plutarch, the inventor of biographical history, puts this best in his introduction to his portraits of Alexander and Caesar: “It is not histories I am writing, but lives; and in the most glorious deeds, there is not always an indication of virtue, of vice; indeed a small thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of a character than battles where thousands die.”

SIMON SEBAG MONTEFIORE

RAMESES THE GREAT

c. 1302–1213 BC

His majesty slaughtered them all; they fell before his horse, and his majesty was alone, none with him.

Inscription on the temple walls of Luxor

Rameses II was the most magnificent of the Egyptian pharaohs, whose long reign—over sixty years—saw both military successes and some of the most impressive building projects of the ancient world. He subdued the Hittites and the Libyans, and led Egypt into a period of creative prosperity but he was probably the villain of the Exodus.

Some of the greatest wonders of the ancient world owe their existence to Rameses: he typifies the old-fashioned hero-king, admired for his conquests and monumental works, often won and built at a terrible human cost. His reign marks the high point of the Egypt of the pharaohs, in terms of both imperial power and artistic output.

During the reign of Rameses’ father, Seti I, Egypt had been involved in struggles for control over Palestine and Syria with the Hittites of Anatolia (in modern Turkey). Despite some initial success, when Rameses inherited the throne in 1279 BC Hittite power extended as far south as Kadesh in Syria.

Having been a ranking military officer, in title at least, since the age of ten, Rameses was keen to begin his reign with a victory. However, his first engagement with the Hittites, at the Battle of Kadesh in 1274, was a strategic failure. Despite winning the battle, Rameses could not consolidate his position and capture the actual city of Kadesh. In the eighth or ninth year of his reign he captured towns in Galilee and Amor, and shortly afterward he broke through the Hittite defenses, taking the Syrian towns of Katna and Tunip. No Egyptian ruler had been in Tunip for at least 120 years.

Despite these successes, Rameses found his advances against the Hittite empire unsustainable, so in 1258 the two sides met at Kadesh and agreed the first recorded peace treaty in history. With typical ostentation, the treaty was inscribed not on lowly papyrus but on silver, in both Egyptian and Hittite. It went further than merely agreeing to end hostilities; it also established an alliance by which both sides agreed to help the other in the event of an attack from a third party. Refugees from the long years of conflict were given protection and the right to return to their homelands.