Caesar's Commentaries

[Divi Filius]

According to Suetonius (Div. Iul., lvi)

 

Asinius Pollio thinks that they were put together somewhat carelessly and without strict regard for the truth; since in many cases Caesar was too ready to believe the accounts which others gave of their actions, and gave a perverted account of his own, either designedly or perhaps from forgetfulness; and he thinks that he intended to rewrite and revise them."

 

There is an article available on this from Balsdon.

J.P.V.D. Balsdon, "The Veracity of Caesar", Greece & Rome, 2nd ser., Vol. 4, No. 1. (1956), pp. 19-28

 

He goes over a few of the inaccuracies in his books along with many of the questions that arise when studying it.

 

Here is an interesting excerpt from it, a hypothetical trial in Rome had he not marched on the city:

 

"... if Caesar claimed that the mass movement of 368,000 people (B.G. i. 29) might perhaps got out of control or changed directions on the way, the prosecution would have challenged his figure and suggested that it was not in fact a migration on this scale because, when the survivors (110,000 by Caesar's account) were forced to return home, there was a home still for them to return to; that they would have not been so fortunate, as Caesar claimed, the entire people was migrating, for some other tribe would have moved in meanwhile and seized the territory they had vacated. 'Posse Gallos internis discordiis relinqui', it might have been urged (2). The migration was no affair of Caesar's at all.

 

(2) Cf. Tac. Ann. ii. 26. 3

Edited December 1, 2006 by Divi Filius

[WotWotius]

Tacitus also puts a negative spin on Caesar's British campaigns:

 

'Julius Caesar, the first Roman to enter Britain with am army did indeed intimidate the natives by a victory and secure a grip on the coast. But he may fairly be said to have drawn attention to the island: it was not his to bequeath.' -Tac. Agricola 13.

 

I think Plutarch gives an account of Caesar's Gallic/German/British campaigns. Does anybody have the text?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Here's a small account of the British expedition from Plutarch's Life Of Ceasar

 

2 His expedition against the Britanni was celebrated for its daring. For he was the first to launch a fleet upon the western ocean and to sail through the Atlantic sea carrying an army to wage war. 3 The island was of incredible magnitude, and furnished much matter of dispute to multitudes of writers, some of whom averred that its name and story had been fabricated, since it never had existed and did not then exist; and in his attempt to occupy it he carried the Roman supremacy beyond the confines of the inhabited world. 4 After twice crossing to the island from the opposite coast of Gaul and in many battles damaging the enemy rather than enriching his own men

Edited December 1, 2006 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

You could also say that the commentaries were propaganda. Take for example the slaughter of the Helvatians at the Arar. He managed to take the murder of women and children and turn it into a moral victory, because we know how those crafty Swiss are.

 

He also spoke about unicorns and horses without knees.

[Primus Pilus]

You could also say that the commentaries were propaganda. Take for example the slaughter of the Helvatians at the Arar. He managed to take the murder of women and children and turn it into a moral victory, because we know how those crafty Swiss are.

 

This, of course, is not the first time that the "slaughter of innocents" perception has been raised. While the viewpoint is understandable according to our modern sensibilities, the position of the ancients was a bit different. Even the opposition to Caesar's actions was based largely upon legality, and not necessarily the victimization of foreign people on moral grounds.

 

We know Caesar slaughtered a great number of people, as it was his own words that very proudly boasted of it. The "Conquest of Gaul" while an incredible historical account was also propaganda, without a doubt. Nobody here, I presume even the most ardent Caesar supporters, would argue with you on that.

[M. Porcius Cato]

You could also say that the commentaries were propaganda. Take for example the slaughter of the Helvatians at the Arar. He managed to take the murder of women and children and turn it into a moral victory, because we know how those crafty Swiss are.

 

He also spoke about unicorns and horses without knees.

 

Welcome, Marcus Tullius Cicero! Could you find that passage where Caesar discusses horses without knees?

[Rameses the Great]

I'm just saying I trust Caesar's word rather then a Greek 'historian' any day. If he draws upon propaganda in some way, thats ok we know that this is incorrect and give a more accurate estimation. However I just hate the idea of having to trust in Greeks for Caesar's works, this to me is weird.

 

What I have read from the Commentaries, he seems fair and telling the truth. The only problems at times is his number of deaths in a battle to the Gauls. However his battle with Ariovistus was an amazing one and accurately depicted.

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

I will be honest, I slept a lot in that latin class. I will look for my translation and find the passage. I don't have it with me here.

 

Since we are all in agreement that it is propaganda, how can we look at any passage without some degree of skepticism?

 

And yes, I know we can't look at events that happend in the past with the morals of today, but what threat were the Helvatians? I do not understand much of Caesar, so I am not trying to be smart or raise good points, I just have some questions about it. Thank you everyone.

[Primus Pilus]

but what threat were the Helvatians? I do not understand much of Caesar, so I am not trying to be smart or raise good points, I just have some questions about it. Thank you everyone.

 

They were threat enough and/or provided a solid enough opportunity to sway Caesar from his conquest of Illyria and the Danube region. I believe that Caesar wasn't personally all that concerned with the Helvetii, but I'm reasonably comfortable that the Roman allies in southeastern Gaul may have been honestly worried.

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

So they were a matter of opprotunity for Caesar, but why would he want to be taken away from Danube and Illyria? Wouldn't more have been gained for Caesar, and eventually Rome, if he stayed in those regions?

[Germanicus]

Wouldn't more have been gained for Caesar, and eventually Rome, if he stayed in those regions?

 

As Governor he had a duty to aid and protect those in his sphere with "Friend and Ally" status. Read the Gallic Wars, you'll get the picture.

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

Thank you Germanicus. Is there a good translation you would recomend?

[Germanicus]

Penguin Classics are good for me.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Caesar went against the Helvetii for two reasons :

 

- it threatened the peace and the balance of power in his area of responsability and weakened the current switzerland so much it could provide an easy way of invasion for german armies ( do not forget the great scare of the Cimbri and Teutones whose memory was still well alive in Rome )

 

- Caesar had a personnal grudge against a people who had humilied some of his family relatives whose honor he had to clean.

 

Then after he had done his job against the Helvetii ( who, we shall remember, had asked permission to cross the Provincia ) he was drawn against Ariovistus and then decided that since his forces were in theater, the lands good and the area rich and already well known by the roman traders ( to whom he was probably indebted ) he should conquer the area.

 

For one element one has to bear in mind is the fact that the interior of Gaul was much better known by the romans than the interior of the Balkans and trade with the area much more important thus the change of plan made a lot more sense than usually thought by some.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave

I read Gallic Wars at the age of 12 or 13 so my memories of it are very sketchy. The one thing that did strike me at that time was the realisation that in combat bravery and virility are rarely a good substitute for discipline and battlecraft, and this is amply illustrated in the Commentaries.

I might read it again if I have time but can anyone give me any input on his Civil War commentaries and on how they compare with his previous famous work? There is a copy in my local library and I am in two minds on whether to get it or not.