← History Uncensored
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:02]
A
I have a rule for reading powerful men. Never trust a leader who's a little too into dead conquerors. It's a good rule of thumb. Not because loving ancient history is dangerous, of course, some of us are just nerds with taste, but because the heroes that leaders revere are rarely random. Xi Jinping, Putin, Mussolini, Trump, Musk, Hitler, Napoleon, Zuckerberg, wildly different men drawn to the ancient world as a source of power and myth. Xi Jinping invoked the Thucydides trap in front of the world's Media at his May 2026 summit with Trump, asking whether China and America could avoid the fate of Athens and Sparta. The idea, based on the writings of Athenian historian and general Thucydides, is, is simple. When one power rises and another fears being replaced, each move starts to look like aggression. So when Xi Jinping opens a US China summit with Thucydides, the subtext is do you understand the potential game that we're in? And that reminded me why these ancient references should interest all of us. Because they aren't random. They frame the present and they tell us things. So that got me thinking. Why do modern leaders keep reaching back to ancient Greece and Rome? And what does it reveal when they do that? The people that leaders admire are clues. Sometimes I think even a partial self portrait. They might even indicate the power that someone wishes they had, or what kind of world they'd build if they could. Carl Jung would argue that you can't truly admire something that you don't desire to possess or on, on some level already recognised within yourself. Adlerian psychology would say that the heroes we choose reveals the gap that we're most urgently trying to close and the person we secretly want to become. And even if we dispense with that completely, it's just common sense, isn't it, that it's unlikely a committed democrat is going to pick Hitler as their role model. And a fascist won't go looking for inspiration in Greta Thunberg or a libertarian in Lenin. Usually the admiration mirrors in some way our existing self conception. So let me know who your heroes are in the comments. Now, the ancient world is especially tempting because it comes preloaded in the public imagination. With prestige, you've got all this marble eagles, conquest, empire, sacrifice, civilizational grandeur. And to certain audiences, not all referencing that can make a leader's modern ambition look more noble than it would. And there's a name for this argumentum ad antiquitatum, which means appeal to antiquity. The idea that because something is ancient, it must somehow be more correct, which is a fallacy, obviously not proof, not analysis. Vibes in a toga. Historically, though, politicians have loved antiquity because it bestows two very useful glamour and permission. Napoleon understood this. He studied Caesar, Alexander and Frederick the Great and then built an imperial aesthetic full of Roman echoes like eagles, laurels, consulship and empire. He didn't just want to govern France, he wanted to enter history alongside those men. Adolf Hitler's ancient obsession was Sparta, what he thought of as the purest or foremost racial state in history. Eugenicists and racial theorists found spurious retellings of Spartan arte useful because it seemed to give ancient authority to plans they already wanted to implement. Hitler wanted people to believe that the ancient Greeks shared Aryan heritage with the Germans, and the world's first Olympic relay, carrying the torch from Greece to Germany was part of this. Plus, according to Joachim Vest's Hitler biography, Hitler felt an affinity with Julius Caesar and Augustus. Benito Mussolini presented Fascist Italy as the heir to ancient Rome, what he called Terza Roma, Third Rome, following the Rome of the Caesars and the Rome of the Popes. He built in Roman style, staged Roman ceremonies, adopted the fasis, the bundle of rods carried for Roman magistrates, as the symbol of his entire movement. Hence the word fascism. Who claims to be at the helm of a very different third Rome today. Vladimir Putin. He stated in a Russian documentary that Moscow is the third Rome and there will be no fourth. So when Putin says this, he's casting Orthodox Russia as the direct spiritual heir to the birthplace of Eastern Orthodoxy, Byzantium, which itself was heir to Rome. So third Rome. Now, that's a far cry from Mussolini's interpretation of third Rome, but it serves a similar function. It attempts to cloak modern power moves and imperialism in this sense of historical destiny. Then there's Donald Trump. The Atlantic reported this year that Trump has moved past George Washington, Abraham Lincoln as reference points, and he now aspires to be in the category of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and Napoleon. When asked directly in January this year if Trump saw any limits on the global use of his power, he replied, my own morality, my own mind, it's the only thing that can stop me. I don't need international law. Evoking the spirit of Caesar, crossing the Rubicon, explicitly forbidden the law, no match for his political survival. Finding inspiration in the ancient world is, of course, not confined to politicians. Elon Musk frequently draws parallels between the US and Rome, posting America is New Rome on X, donating to Roman archaeological projects. Lest we forget challenging Mark Zuckerberg to a cage fight, speaking to the Italian Government about hosting it at an ancient Roman site. The Colosseum was floated, I must say, as a history and martial arts enthusiast. That would have been pushing it, even for me. But speaking of Mark Zuckerberg has been fascinated by Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, and drawn parallels with his Facebook empire. Two of his children, August and Aurelia, named after Roman emperors. And at a Meta Connect event in 2024, he wore a T shirt reading Alt Z aut nihil Zuck. Or nothing. A play on Aut Caesar aut nihil, referring to Julius Caesar's uncompromising power and drive. Very subtle. So you might notice that the historical figures that I've mentioned so far are unfettered by democracy. They are considered history's great men. German philosopher Hegel called figures like this world historical individuals, people who seem to embody the spirit of an age. Men who look at normal government and think that's too small a prize. Now, of course, liking Rome does not make you a tyrant. I like Rome. I like Greece. You probably do too, if you're watching. But my point is, which ancient figure someone admires is telling. And I will also acknowledge. I don't know if you can see it, but I have a bust of Athena, Greek goddess of war and wisdom behind me on my shelf. So just want to say that don't want to be a hypocrite. Anywho, not everyone who reaches for antiquity is reaching for a conqueror. George Washington admired Cato the Younger, the Roman statesman who chose suicide over submission to Caesar's dictatorship, a symbol of resistance to tyranny and republican virtue. As Washington himself was building a brand new republic in the shadow of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson identified himself as an epicurean after the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who taught that simple pleasure is the greatest goal in life. And historians say that it's likely because of this that Jefferson added the phrase pursuit of happiness to the Declaration of Independence. Bill Clinton named Marcus Aurelius Meditations as the book that most influenced him, which is of course this private journal written by the most powerful man on earth, reminding himself daily to stay humble, patient and dutiful. Now, I'm not suggesting that leaders succeed in embodying the attributes of their heroes. And of course, politicians, not a class renowned for radical honesty, so who knows who's secretly inspiring them? But reading between the lines, some leaders clearly look to the ancient world for instruction and permission to dominate. Others look for conscience to resist it. There's also a useful word here, chrono, politics. It means the politics of time. And it includes the way that leaders use the past to legitimize the present and claim authority over the future. Putin does it with the medieval Rus, Mussolini did it with ancient Rome, Xi Jinping with Confucius to drum up national pride and state harmony. Democracies do it as well, but usually with a different kind of ancient vocabulary like restraint, duty, the Republic. The ancient world is vast enough to justify almost anything. You can find democracy in Athens, militarism in Sparta, Empire in Rome, Republicanism in Cicero, self control in Marcus Aurelius, conquest in Alexander. So the question that I put to you is never do political leaders read the classics? It's what are they trying to authorize through them? A leader's hero is not a psychological assessment, but it is evidence of sorts. And certainly when powerful people start seeing themselves in marble, bronze and empire, the rest of us should definitely pay attention. So which pet ancients of leaders are you aware of and what do you think it says about them? Let me know in the comments and I'll see you next time.