The Conquest of Gaul

Fascinating to be reading the words Julius Caser wrote over 2,000 years ago.
However, took a long time to get through this. Put the book down numerous times. ( )

Absolutely fascinating. It is a momentous achievement that we have an "almost" first-hand account of the conquest of Gaul by Caesar.

Definitely not my last read of these types of memoirs.

Recommended for everyone. ( )

Important historically as a work of propaganda or in examining historical perceptions of the "meaning" of military science. ( )

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. ( )

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. 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. ( )