The Conquest of Gaul

Quintilian said of Caesar that, he alone could have rivalled Cicero for his elegance of language and purity of style. I dont know about his Latin but, judging by how 'The Conquest of Gaul' translates in English I take his word for it! A straightforward yet epic narrative where anthropology, geography and above all campaigns' diary and military accounts are all mixed together in an exciting tale of the Gallic Wars, fast paced and riveting these commentaries will glue you up to the last page.

More interesting though is how, with insight, Julius Caesar portrays himself. Reading it for what it is (a pure work of propaganda destined to serve his future political career) 'The Conquest of Gaul' is a masterpiece. It contains indeed the right show more balance between what needs to be boldly asserted (e.g. his triumph in subjecting -or at least winning on the battlefields!- difficult warlike peoples) and what can be displayed in-between the lines (e.g. his ability to negotiate, brutally or mercifully as circumstances dictates, with a complicated network of divided tribes).

Strikingly then, here's a book that shows Caesar how he wanted to appear. More than a triumphal military leader, charismatic and respected by his men, he also was a canny and tactful politician who had both honour and Rome's interest at heart.

As an account of the Gallic Wars it is riveting. As a work of political propaganda it's just masterfully calculated. Remarkable! show less

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2564491.html

Translation by Anne and Peter Wiseman (the latter lectured J.K. Rowling in classics and is rumoured to have been a model for Dumbledore) with lots of maps and photographs of archaeological remains. Reading the introduction, I was startled by the Wisemans' description of the Gauls as "primitive" and the Britons and Germans as even more so. The book was published in 1980 which seems rather late in the day for such strong colonialist language. Caesar himself is much clearer about the strengths of his opponents - the Helvetii had a Greek-language census, the Veneti have excellent seafaring skills (though the Romans of course still win) and Ambiorix and Vercingetorix come close to beating him. show more Granted, of course, this is propaganda to make the writer look good by defeating sophisticated foes, but the editors frame the narrative more strongly in terms of civilised Romans vs barbarians than Caesar does. Certainly he seems to have killed a lot more non-combatants, or at least bragged about doing so, which is hardly a mark of civilisation.

Anyway, it's a straightforward military narrative written by a key figure, and refreshingly clear even two millennia later. Worth the reread. show less

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 show more 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”. show less

There’s much to value in Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War; it is lucidly and elegantly written, and Caesar’s august style makes it a rare reading experience. Being (at least in part) intended as source material for others, the narrative is straightforward and transparent, and there’s not a word too many. This is easily the best account of a military campaign I have ever read. The detailed descriptions of battle tactics, siegeworks, troop movements (on both sides), logistics, etc, gives an unique view of the different battles as well as the practical (and psychological) mechanisms of ancient warfare. Except for the occasional depreciating remark about Gauls in general, I was little bothered about the purported show more propaganda aspect of this work, also because it clearly shows what a formidable foe the combined forces of the Gallic tribes actually were. At the outset, I didn't expect to like it as much as I actually did, but I come out of this with a newfound respect for both the military commander and the author, as well as the man, Gaius Julius Caesar.
I read the excellent translation by S. A. Handford, revised and with a new introduction by J. F. Gardner; much of the introduction is however rather jumbled and stands in stark contrast to Caesar’s own clear and well-organized account. The maps are good and invaluable for being able to follow the troop movements throughout Gaul.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. show less

I can't read this without hearing the voice of Ciaran Hinds (who played Caesar on the tv series Rome) narrating this.....

Although undoubtedly Caesar was writing for both then-current political consumption as well as perhaps for posterity, this is a surprisingly frank and detailed account of the 10 years it took Caesar to conquer Gaul (France, Belgium and parts of Germany, Switzerland and Italy). He details both the valor of the Gauls (his enemy) and well as periodic stupidity or cowardice of certain Romans, as well as the to-be-expected accounts of heroism on the part of Romans. His language is strikingly modest and he is constantly naming soldiers of the line and giving credit to others. While again this is partly undoubtedly to show more encourage political support and loyalty, one can't but believe that Caesar had internalized a leadership style that gave credit to others (whilst undoubtedly seeing the benefit to himself thereby). His account of the cultural practices of the Druids is quite interesting and it's clear that Caesar was a student of the people he hoped to conquer. It's interesting to read quotes such as this - "Next to him (Mars the god) come Apollo, Jupiter, and Minerva, and about them their ideas correspond fairly closely with those current among the rest of mankind, viz. that Apollo expels diseases, that Minerva teaches ...." and speculate on Caesar's own perspective on the gods their potential uses for political purposes.

A common practice of the time to encourage compliance after a victory was the taking of hostages. One can't go more than a few pages without more hostages being taken, often in the hundreds. Indeed later in the book we find that there is almost an entire city dedicating to housing the hostages taken in the war.

We see in the text that Caesar was always mindful of appearance and ceremony. For example, "Caesar was nevertheless strongly of the opinion that to do so by means of boats would neither be unattended by risk, nor worth of his own or his country's dignity." And surprisingly matter-of-fact about the business of war: "It remained, therefore, only to do the work of devastation, and for this a few days were spent in burning the farms and villages and in rooting up the crops". (It is striking how much of the conquest is dictated by weather and seasons - Caesar often retires to Rome for the winter, for example). There is surprising amount of engineering in warfare here - there are many accounts of interesting bridge-building techniques and challenges.

The Conquest of Gaul culminates in the battle of Alesia where the Gaul King Vercingetorix surrenders to Caesar after a prolonged siege and battle. (The description of the innovations Caesar and his army made in fortifications are quite interesting.). Interestingly enough there is little description of Vercingetorix's fate in the book (nor much celebration of what would prove the final victory for Caesar), but he would be sent to Rome, kept a prisoner for 5 years, and executed during Caesar's triumph, but that time period is not covered by the book. show less

Nothing better represents Caesar's understanding of how to play upon the hopes and joys of man than the fact that he was able to turn a few hundred pages of troop movements into a thoughtful, engrossing narrative. We read not only Caesar's thoughts and intentions in the work, but also gain an invaluable view of Roman politics. In his own words, Caesar sets the scene for the events which soon overtook the empire and captured the imagination of western literature for thousands of years to come.

If the secret to enjoying Tolkien is skipping all the poetry and troop movements, I never thought this reflected poorly on poetry as an art, but I must admit I never realized that there was an art to the military memoir to reflect poorly on. I shall show more have to do my best to remedy this, though whether there are accounts which equal Caesar's in elegance and focus, I remain in doubt. show less

Un libro escrito hace 2000 años por un militar? (bueno, seguramente dictado y editador por sus secretarios) No parece que vaya a ser una maravilla.
Pero Julio Cesar mantiene moviendose en el libro como si fuera un campo de batalla. Variando entre el comentario politico, el movimiento de tropas, el desarrollo de batallas particulares y detalles culturales.

Por supuesto Cesar seguramente miente en todos los detalles, parece que siempre toma las decisiones tacticas y estrategicas ideales lo cual no pudo ser así siempre.

Pero ya se sabe que la historia la escriben los vencedores.