Napoleon On Caesar

[M. Porcius Cato]

Napoleon wrote (or dictated) a commentary on Caesar's adventures in Gaul, Britain, and the civil wars. I've seen this commentary cited several times (most notably by the great military historian, J F C Fuller) yet never had a chance to read a copy. Any information about how to get a copy (in English, please--je parle francais comme une vache espagnol)?

[Princeps]

He wrote quite a lot didn't he! I would also like to check some of his stuff out, I've read a couple of books on Napoleon, but never anything by the man himself.

[Furius Venator]

http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/textonlyar...f_His_Views.txt

 

might possibly be of use. Napoleon seems to be rather anachronistic in his assessment of Caesar as a commander (as of course Fuller was too, though Fuller had more of an axe to grind I suspect).

 

EDIT. Link doesn't go to page- sorry. Text here:

 

NAPOLEON ON CAESAR: MAGAZINE PUBLISHES FIRST

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF HIS VIEWS

 

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., July 28 -- What did Napoleon Bonaparte

think of Julius Caesar?

In its August issue, Military History magazine reveals

Napoleon's opinion of Caesar -- the first time his notes have been

published in English, according to the magazine's editor, C. Brian

Kelly, a University of Virginia lecturer.

"Although all publications like to boast about their writers,

we feel it's a special honor to have an article with Napoleon's

byline," said Kelly, who has been editor of the magazine since its

inception in August 1984.

After analyzing "The Commentaries of Caesar on The Gallic

War," Napoleon criticized the Roman general's military judgment and

occasional brutal treatment of defeated enemy leaders. He felt

that Caesar invaded Britain with inadequate forces and believed it

was inappropriate to execute rebellious Veneti in France.

While in exile on St. Helena Island, Napoleon dictated notes

on Caesar's third-person commentary. The notes, first published in

1836, were translated from the original French by classical scholar

Smith Palmer Bovie for the magazine.

The notes do offer some praise for Caesar. Napoleon described

Caesar's army as being disciplined and well organized. He also

acknowledged the successes Caesar had in his military campaign,

calling attention to the differences in warfare between the last

century B.C. and that of Napoleon's era, nearly 2,000 years later.

 

###

July 27, 1994

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION, contact Kelly at (804) 924-7105 or (804)

980-3745.

 

Karen A. Castle

University News Office

kac@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu

(804) 924-7116

Edited July 7, 2006 by Furius Venator

[M. Porcius Cato]

Yes, I saw that via Google, but I don't have access to that issue of Military History. BTW, if you haven't read it, how do you know whether Napoleon's assessment of Caesar contained anachronisms?

[Furius Venator]

I didn't know youd seen it already Cato...

 

As to your other question, I've read various commentaries on Napoleon's commentaries in other works and most of the quoted criticisms would be fair enough were Caesar commanding a C18 or 19 army but are hardly fair if one considers the Late Republican Army.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Furius, can you give an example of such a criticism?

[Furius Venator]

You'll have to bear with me as I'm moving house and so am in the middle of unpacking all my books. PM me in a couple of days, if you'd be so kind, and that'll remind me to look some out for you.

 

'and believed it

was inappropriate to execute rebellious Veneti in France.'

 

might well be one though. Inappropriate in the C19 perhaps (though of course the Spanish guerillas were executed if captured by the French) but pretty common in more ancient times.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I guess I don't agree with Le'Emperor then on his Briton invasion. I wonder if he could have had a full assessment of the Britons before going there himself, and was embarking in waters and in lands they knew nothing about to make a profound political point. If that was the case then bringing only just enough soldiers to beat around the bush for a bit was then actually the more sound tactical move with a barely conquered Gaul behind him.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I guess I don't agree with Le'Emperor then on his Briton invasion. I wonder if he could have had a full assessment of the Britons before going there himself, and was embarking in waters and in lands they knew nothing about to make a profound political point. If that was the case then bringing only just enough soldiers to beat around the bush for a bit was then actually the more sound tactical move with a barely conquered Gaul behind him.

 

A profound political point to whom? The point being what? That the Romans can't plan a simple naval crossing with any competence and are easily turned away by the first sign of trouble? Yes, that's a profound political point to make.

 

If Napoleon criticized Caesar's near-disastrous escapade into Britain, then I agree with Napoleon.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Caesar's commentaries are all I need as proof to validate my point. The simple fact that he wrote them is a clear sign he wanted to perform deeds and have them known in Rome. So having his latest war commentary even mention 'Oh by the way I launched an invasion of the mythical island of Britannia. They fought well and we could not affect a lasting solution, but it was an interesting experience' is like a future American president writing a book about the Mars mission he took part in.

 

There are some deeds a man can perform that will inspire such awe in people.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Caesar's commentaries are all I need as proof to validate my point.

 

I see, the gospel of Caesar shall not be questioned. Sigh. Isn't it possible that Napoleon has something interesting to observe that you might have missed? If Caesar had a commentary on Alexander, wouldn't you want to read it?

[Favonius Cornelius]

Caesar's commentaries are all I need as proof to validate my point.

 

I see, the gospel of Caesar shall not be questioned. Sigh. Isn't it possible that Napoleon has something interesting to observe that you might have missed? If Caesar had a commentary on Alexander, wouldn't you want to read it?

 

I'm not doubting that Napoleon might have interesting observations, I'm just responding to the idea that his Briton invasion was a falure, when indeed the invasion achieved the objectives I believe Caesar had.

[P.Clodius]

Caesar's invasion of Britannia was a rousing sucess, as were ALL his ventures. I would have thought by now you'd have learned that MPC!

 

Anglesey (island in NW Wales), was the Vatican of the Celts, the Britons were supplying aid to the conquered Gauls. Caesar's ventures were nothing less than a show of force/capabilty. "Behave, we can come here anytime we wish!"

[M. Porcius Cato]

Let's debate Caesar's adventures in Britain in another thread. I take it that no one knows what Napolean had to say about Caesar other than that which is contained in the press release above.