Caesar's Commentaries

[Rameses the Great]

Of course we have all heard of Caesar's Commentaries. I would just like to know how effective and accurate was it? It seems he depicts it all accurately (from what I've seen) although he seems to exaggerate to some extent, the killing of Gauls in one battle for example. I believe that he has to be the person who most accurately depicts the Gauls and Britons in most aspects. Forget Greeks and Polybius, why does he not get credited enough? I rather get it from the horse's mouth rather than some Greek who decided to write about it, with all due respect to the Greek writers of course.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Gaul is a whole divided into three parts..........

 

I think that Caesar's Gallic Commentaries is extremely informative, it gives us a detailed descriptions of the geography and of the inhabitants of not only Gaul and it's many tribes like the Aedui, Helvetti, Belgae, Veneti, Suebi, but also the Germanic tribes aswell as a very detailed description of the British expedition.

 

Caesar gives an indepth analysis of the workings of the many different tribes and their beliefs, he tells us how they lived, how they dressed, what they ate, how they formed for battle, he also informs us of the workings of the Roman army, battle formations, siege works, defending camps, soldiers morale, how they shared up the booty, keeping the supply lines flowing etc.

 

Yes i'm sure some of the casualties of battle and the resounding Roman victories are a slight exaggeration of the truth but what the hell, i'm pretty sure he's not the first author and definately not the last to strech the truth a bit.

[Germanicus]

I think he does get credit. The Gallic Wars in particular provide the best eye witness accounts of a late republican legionary army on campaign. They also provide first hand desciptions of Gallic and Germanic tribes - their dress, their combat style, their strongholds, religeon etc.

 

While it's true that they were really written for political reasons, and one can't forget that, Caesar had no reason to make up or exaggerate actual observations of the people he was fighting and their culture.

 

Everytime I see a documentary on the Roman military, or on the Celts for that matter I see Caesar quoted and referred to.

[DecimusCaesar]

He is the best source for Western Europe of this time (Switzerland, Belgium, France, Britain). His accounts of the Germans, Gauls and Britons are very interesting and informative. As Germanicus says, whenever a program discusses the Celts or Iron Age Europe Caesar is quoted. Even so some people, namely Peter Berreford-Ellis, have criticized his writings by claiming that Caesar makes many false claims about the Gauls. Berresford-Ellis himself has being criticized for agreeing with Caesar whenever he praises the Gauls but disagreeing with him whenever he has something bad to say about them, for instance his claim that the Gauls shared each others wives.

[caldrail]

Of course we have all heard of Caesar's Commentaries. I would just like to know how effective and accurate was it? It seems he depicts it all accurately (from what I've seen) although he seems to exaggerate to some extent, the killing of Gauls in one battle for example. I believe that he has to be the person who most accurately depicts the Gauls and Britons in most aspects. Forget Greeks and Polybius, why does he not get credited enough? I rather get it from the horse's mouth rather than some Greek who decided to write about it, with all due respect to the Greek writers of course.

 

Like many roman writers, theres a lot to learn from it but you need to think about it and cross reference to get at the truth I think. Some time ago there was a post about gaulish cavalry. I read up about them from Caesars work and noticed two seperate threads. One was that caesars allies weren't particularly effective - they fled from a smaller force of german horsemen who threw stones at them - and that gaulish horsemen were very fond of horses and paid huge sums for their pampered beasts. There was also another passage describing their home life as extolling tolls from travellers. So I get the picture that caesars allies were little more than bandits who used their ill gotten gains to buy expensive horses they couldn't afford to risk in battle. Although caesar doesn't criticise them, I imagine he was less than impressed with his allies performance. He doesn't write this, but the clues are there. On the other hand Caesar is ambitious and wants to enlarge his public persona to further his career. There is nothing the romans like better than a military hero so he over-stresses his victories and very definitely exaggarates his statistics. Why else did he invade britain twice with near disastrous results? He wanted the reputation for being the first to attack that mysterious rain-soaked island beyond Gaul. Courage and conquest. In fact, although his commentaries are a good record of what the man did, its also a monument to his image.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

One must also remember that Caesar did not write his book only from his personnal experiance. The Commentaries have been shown to draw a lot ( especially in the religious real, but not only ) from the writings of the greek philosopher and historian Poseidonios whom Caesar sometimes quote. And Poseidonios was a great and most learned writer.

 

The truthfulness of Caesar's Commentaries is also due to the fact that he was not alone in Gaul, he had a massive army with him, from which many people went back to Rome or where many peoples came to meet him. Thus he could easily be contradicted by other peoples if he went too far from the truth.

 

Another point is that he was trying to impress the audiance back in Rome. Thus he had to give a complete picture of his ennemies that made them somewhat civilised, to make them a worthy ennemy and not only the barbarian who took Rome.

 

All those elements makes the Commentaries a serious and well documented account and thus an important document for us.

[Primus Pilus]

The truthfulness of Caesar's Commentaries is also due to the fact that he was not alone in Gaul, he had a massive army with him, from which many people went back to Rome or where many peoples came to meet him. Thus he could easily be contradicted by other peoples if he went too far from the truth.

 

Yes, the notion that he might have to limit his own propaganda is understandable due to number of witnesses to the actual events has merit. However, consider that a writer is not necessarily concerned with whether or not everyone agrees but rather that their story is told. As a case in point, consider the voluminous number of works regarding modern American politics. Depending on the subject and the audience, some will believe or disbelieve, agree or disagree, but in 2,000 years if only one survives will people say it must be true because the contemporary audience would've known better?

 

Clearly, the number of works available and the condition of 'media' in the ancient world is hardly comparable. However, there were most certainly detractors in Caesar's own army who told friends years later, while lounging at the baths or over a few amphorae of wine, that Caesar's book was full of BS. In this case, there were certainly more who supported Caesar's version of events than did not, but it does not necessarily relate to every detail being true. If a battle did not quite go as planned or was not nearly as monumental as Caesar may have suggested, but the legion in which a legionary had served in was glorified in the process, would he as an individual be overly concerned with correcting the details? Or would he simply say something to the effect of, "Well, Caesar may not have got this just right, but we sure as hell did fight our asses off that day!"

 

Consider that today we as information consumers expect to hear many versions of events. There are innumerable accounts of the same events told in different ways, perspectives and agendas by various historians and event participants. If an event is on a scale considered grand enough, we can expect many novels based on the event at hand to also provide another perspective. In the ancient world, there were very few such accounts at all, and perhaps people were more accustomed to accepting what was written as a general truth, and not fretting over the accuracy of the details.

[M. Porcius Cato]

consider that a writer is not necessarily concerned with whether or not everyone agrees but rather that their story is told. As a case in point, consider the voluminous number of works regarding modern American politics. Depending on the subject and the audience, some will believe or disbelieve, agree or disagree, but in 2,000 years if only one survives will people say it must be true because the contemporary audience would've known better?

 

That's an awfully good point.

 

However, there were most certainly detractors in Caesar's own army who told friends years later, while lounging at the baths or over a few amphorae of wine, that Caesar's book was full of BS.

 

Is this simply a reasonable conjecture, or did you have a particular episode in mind? I don't recall any of Caesar's legates or troops reporting that his commentaries were full of BS (or words to that effect). Have I missed something important?

[caldrail]

You have. Most of soldiers wouldn't know the work existed, much less read it. Some of those who did read the book at the time of writing may have spotted mistakes but chose not to say (for their health?), or perhaps did but slagged it off to their mates and thought no more of it. I mean, they didn't review books the way we do these days did they? Books were handwritten and rare, so few copies were available.

[Primus Pilus]

Is this simply a reasonable conjecture, or did you have a particular episode in mind? I don't recall any of Caesar's legates or troops reporting that his commentaries were full of BS (or words to that effect). Have I missed something important?

 

No, you've assumed correctly that this is complete, yet reasonable (imo, of course) conjecture.

 

However, consider this from book 4 of the Gallic Wars pertaining to the invasion of Britain.

When Caesar observed this, he ordered the ships of war, the appearance of which was somewhat strange to the barbarians and the motion more ready for service, to be withdrawn a little from the transport vessels, and to be propelled by their oars, and be stationed toward the open flank of the enemy, and the enemy to be beaten off and driven away, with slings, arrows, and engines: which plan was of great service to our men; for the barbarians being startled by the form of our ships and the motions of our oars and the nature of our engines, which was strange to them, stopped, and shortly after retreated a little. And while our men were hesitating [whether they should advance to the shore], chiefly on account of the depth of the sea, he who carried the eagle of the tenth legion, after supplicating the gods that the matter might turn out favorably to the legion, exclaimed, "Leap, fellow soldiers, unless you wish to betray your eagle to the enemy. I, for my part, will perform my duty to the commonwealth and my general." When he had said this with a loud voice, he leaped from the ship and proceeded to bear the eagle toward the enemy. Then our men, exhorting one another that so great a disgrace should not be incurred, all leaped from the ship. When those in the nearest vessels saw them, they speedily followed and approached the enemy.

 

How many individual soldier's might recall a quite different scene with a myriad of possible reasons and circumstances? It doesn't necessarily mean that Caesar's account is wrong or even dishonest, but not every soldier on that shore would've had the exact same experience in what seems to be a rather chaotic moment of the war.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Your points are true indeed but I think you tend to underestimate the amount of communication between Rome and the army : a lot ( if not all ) of Caesar's soldiers were literrate, it was required in order to be able to read order or passwords for exemple. And we know they sent messages back to their family, and quite often too. Sure the officers did this more than the common soldiers, but still the amount of letters must have been rather high, higher than usually thought.

 

Thus the facts could be checked and thanks to Cicero's letters we have a point of comparison between caesarean and other version of the same events during the gallic campaign. And they show that the caesarean version is not very far of what his legates said in private to their friends in Rome.

 

So sure they are elements that are to be taken with caution, numbers of ennemies slain and captured being one exemple, but in the main the commentaries are rather a good source of information.

[Rameses the Great]

All good points and I feel that I understand now.

 

The problem I have is should we not trust Caesar more then a bunch of Greek writers who either heard of the event, or just wanted to get it from a Roman source? I just think the Roman generals who had direct contact with the Gauls, no matter how biased, should be trusted more then the best of Greek writers.

[WotWotius]

Many of the apparent actualities in Caesar's works are either based on assumptions, or very basic reconnaissance work. For instance, Caesar gives ethnographical accounts

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Many of the apparent actualities in Caesar's works are either based on assumptions, or very basic reconnaissance work. For instance, Caesar gives ethnographical accounts

[WotWotius]

It also seems that later writers subsequently used Caesar's work as a source:

 

'Britain is triangular in shape; and its longest side stretches parallel to Celtica, neither exceeding nor falling short of the length of Celtica; for each of the two lengths is about four thousand three hundred — or four hundred — stadia: the Celtic length that extends from the outlets of the Rhenus as far as those northern ends of the Pyrenees that are near Aquitania, as also the length that extends from Cantium (which is directly opposite the outlets of the Rhenus), the most easterly point of Britain, as far as that westerly end of the island which lies opposite the Aquitanian Pyrenees. This, of course, is the shortest distance from the Pyrenees to the Rhenus, since, as I have already said, the greatest distance is as much as five thousand stadia; yet it is reasonable to suppose that there is a convergence from the parallel position which the river and the mountains occupy with reference to each other,since at the ends where they approach the ocean there is a curve in both of them.' - Strabo Geography IV 5.1

 

Anyway, back to the topic: are there any other sources on the Gallic War that act as a counterbalance to Caesar's account?

Edited November 30, 2006 by WotWotius