Commentaries on the Gallic War

Edition: // Descr: viii, 502 p. : ill., maps 18.5 cm. // Series: Call No. { 878 C11 8 } By William Rainey Harper and Herbert Cushing Tolman Contains Notes, Exercises in Latin Composition, Word Lists, Classification of Words, General Vocabulary, Special Vocabulary to Book Eight, and Indexes of Geography and Proper Names. // //

Edition: Revised Edition // Descr: lxiii, 377 p. : ill., maps 19 cm. // Series: Standard Classical Textbooks Call No. { 878 C11 12 } With Notes, Dictionary, and a Map of Gaul by Albert Harkness. // //

Edition: // Descr: 238 p. : ill., maps 19 cm. // Series: Call No. { 878.1 Ga5ri c2. } Edited with Notes, Summary of Forms and Syntax, Prose Composition, and Vocabulary by Ernest Riess and Arthur L. Janes Combined with Janes's Sight Reading. // //

Edition: // Descr: 283 p. 18.5 cm. // Series: The Penguin Classics Call No. { 878 C11 9 } Series Edited by Betty Radice Translated by S.A. Handford Contains Notes and Glossary. // //

My reactions in 1991.

This was an interesting book to read, an account of an ancient conquest told by the conqueror.

This book confirmed first hand things I’ve read elsewhere. As Benjamin Isaac points out in The Limits of Empire, the Romans didn’t really have a clear grasp of geography as pointed out in Caesar’s description of Britain. I’ve heard elsewhere of Caesar’s emphasis on luck in war and several times he mentions fortune, both for and against him. And, in this account, one can see why five Julio-Claudian emperors were able to mooch off Caesar’s reputation.

Caesar was brilliant in strategy, knew when to reward and when to discipline his troops. One can see why the legions developed a fierce loyalty to his family. One can see his oratorical skills (however palely reflected in translation) and mercy (with few exceptions, he’s remarkably lenient with the conquered Gauls -- but there were also practical political and military reasons for that). This book shows some of the flavor of warfare of the time: the importance of deception on the battlefied (and occasionally outright treachery at the parlay), the difficulties of supply, the amazing engineering skill of the Roman legions, the compactness of the ancient battlefield.

I wonder if Caesar’s descriptions of Gallic customs are correct and likewise with the Druids. I suspect Caesar perhaps overstates the client-patron relationships (a characteristic Roman social construct) in Gallic society.

Unfortunately, the book leaves me ignorant on points of ancient warfare I’d like to know: how were hostages (and there are lots in this account) and prisoners kept?, how quiet was the ancient battlefield (we here of speeches given on the field constantly)?, how close did various units camp?, what does a siege terrace look like?, how were the men tactically deployed? It isn’t Caesar’s fault these aren’t mentioned. He’s writing for an audience that knows these background details firsthand and needs no explanation. It would be like a modern history or novel not bothering to explain all that is implied by the words “telephone” or “fax machine”. ( )