Customer Reviews

The Conquest of Gaul (Classics)

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a genuine historical treasure. Rarely are we fortunate enough to have historical accounts written by eyewitnesses. Caesar was not only an eyewitness, but the lead player. It's as though we had accounts of Alexanders campaigns written by Alexander, himself. Or Charlemagne's life in his own words. And, not only is it a firsthand account, but it is brilliantly written. Caesar's commentaries, whether of the Gallic campaigns or of the Civil War that followed, are considered masterpieces of Latin prose. The writing is concise and straightforward. Caesar's writings are still used today to teach Latin.

All the brilliance aside, however, this is also lively and interesting to read. "The Conquest of Gaul" covers the ten-year period of Caesar's proconsulship of Gaul. During those ten years he carried out a series of military campaigns that subdued all of Gaul (Europe west of the Rhine and south to the Pyrenees and Mediterranian), bringing it under Roman rule, while also leading expeditions across the Channel into southeastern Britain. Caesar writes not only of his battles, but also of the tribes he encountered and details of how his own men lived. We see Caesar as the consummate leader, sharing the hardships of his men. He fights in the front lines with them, he marches with them, he eats the same food they eat, and they will follow him anywhere.

Caesar's success as a general is a product of several factors. His speed of movement, his effective use of terrain, the absolute loyalty and confidence of his troops, and the relatively advanced engineering skills of the Romans are all used effectively by Caesar.

Written to publicize Caesar's Gallic successes among the people back in Rome, these accounts remain as readable today as they were intended to be 2,000 years ago. Given the great bulk of ancient writings that have been lost over the centuries, we are extremely fortunate that these are among those that survived. This is really great stuff. Read it. You'll be glad you did.

Amazingly well written and easily readable personal account of the war in Gaul by Caesar himself. Caesar would write these memoirs each year at the end of the Campaign season when in his Winter camp and they have an enormous level of detail. For example, during his first campaign season there is a very detailed account of how the Celts/Gauls built their city walls that made me feel like running out and building a minature reproduction with Lincoln Logs, stones and dirt in the back yard (my wife would have loved that). Clearly, Caesar is recording this for future Roman armies so they know how the Gallic walls are built and how they can be destroyed. At one of the first cities in Gaul that Caesar lays siege to, the defenders gather on the walls and call the Romans names and throw things down at them, reminiscent of a scene from a Monty Python movie where a Gallic defender hurls epithets and other objects down at soldiers in front of a castle. However, when Caesar's troops begin to slowly wheel a massive, multi-story siege engine out of the woods and up to the walls, the occupants throw open their gates, run out, and surrender without a fight. The Romans usually faced lopsided odds in their battles and were frequently outnumbered 3:1. They overcame these odds by the incredible disipline and physical conditioning of the Roman troops who would march up to 50 miles per day with armor and weapons. The battles would usually be lost by the first side whose men panicked and fled the field. Caesar's accounts of battle give you an idea of how critically important discipline and physical strength and conditioning were to the military success of Rome. There are also hints at the possible causes of the later downfall of Rome to the Germanic invasions since Caesar is clearly impressed by the Germanic tribes ability to fight and their physical size and strength. However, it is also clear that Caesar was a great general and would choose the location of his battles very carefully. In multiple instances Caesar retreats to a more favorable location before offering battle. With the better Gallic generals, this would lead to a game of cat and mouse to see who would pick the terrain and therefore fight from a position of advantage. In nearly all instances, Caesar was able to fight on his terms through his own patience and discipline as well as that of his troops. All in all, this is a fascinating historical account that really comes alive and one which I have gone back to several times to re-read.

Julius Caesar was one of the truly pivotal people in recorded history. Most non-historians know him as the one who was stabbed by Brutus on the Ides of March. It is almost as if Caesar sprang full-grown to grab the reigns of power from the Senate in Rome. Yet Caesar had a fairly long life before he became First Citizen of Rome. He was a successful general and a talented historian who saw world events with the dispassionate eye of one who felt supremely confident that his tenure as an army general was but the last stop before his ascension to ultimate power. In his CONQUEST OF GAUL, Caesar uses the third person point of view to punctuate his tacit assumption that unfolding events ought to be divorced as far as possible from the one witnessing them. This writing technique also served to symbolize his stated goal: to conquer Gaul. To him, Gaul was a land of barbarian tribes, with each possessing formidable numbers and fierce fighters. These tribes and their leaders were enormously emotional, wildly unpredictable, and more dangerous as individuals than as organized units. Caesar knew that to beat them, he could not be as them. They were emotional, he coldly calculating. They were not efficient in massed groups, his legions had to be. Caesar was the ultimate practitioner of the divide and conquer school. He picked off his enemies one at a time, like bobbing heads on a shooting gallery. The Atuatucii, the Nervii, the Helvetians all fought ferociously, sometimes winning minor victories, but it was Caesar who won the ones that counted. He transformed his legions into extensions of his personality. They fought well as masses against overwhelming odds, not for their pay, or hope of plunder, or even for glory, but for their commander. Caesar's iron will and resolve filled his legions with hope and his enemies with despair. It was only when Caesar was recalled to Rome that the Gauls decided that now was the time to seek a new leader to strike down the Roman eagle. During this battle against Vercingetorix and his earlier ones against lesser chiefs, Caesar sees each battle as the logical working out of a master plan, that when combined with the bravery and training of his troops in co-ordinated combat, could crush a loud but awkward foe. As he writes, one can visualize his intended audience, not the reader of this review, but the purple-robed senators back in Rome sweating out the increasing victories of a man who seemed fated to return to the Capitol to tell them their business. His calmness in battle was matched only by his calmness with a stylus. It is truly ironic that it was this same calm that led him to discount the excited warnings of a Mark Antony, who tried to tell Caesar of plotters, that led to his downfall.

I have read the present classic book with great pleasure, but I nevertheless have had some feelings of not being completely satisfied with the editing. I happen to possess the complete translation of Ceasar's "Gallic War" published by an imprint of Harvard University Press and it occurred to me that in the present book several seemingly irrelevant passages have been left out. And this strikes me personally as somewhat irritating. Of course, when one does not know the difference one probably won't mind at all, but I thought it might be useful to people out there who are in the moment of deciding whether or not to by the present book to know that it is not the complete version, and should they wish to come into the possession of this complete one they should rather purchase Harvard's "Gallic War". I am not trying to downgrade the present book, but it's just a matter of wishing to own a complete version of the work or not minding at all about such trivial things.

In the most compact and vigorous prose the Latin toungue had up till then seen, the future 'Dictator Perpetuo' reveals himself through his 'commentaries' (which were designed as propaganda to defend his action's against his enemies) as a no non-sense leader of men, and a general of genius. On a review of his life one is taken aback that one man could have had such drive and energy to divide between civic reforms, military campaigns, and a host of other activities which brought him fame and renown through out the entire Roman world; when at the same time he could with ease write masterworks of classical literature the vividness and potency of which still stun us. One will especially enjoy his depiction of the building of the siege works at Alesia, and the final defeat of Vercingetorix. A pleasure.

This is a remarkable document. It is at once a manual on military strategy, on effective management of his troops, and on the psychology of the enemy. But it is also a history, with smatterings of anthropology, sometimes our only source on a vanished pre-Roman way of life in what became France. Finally, and most difficult to grasp, there is a political subtext, in which Caesar is communicating with both allies and rivals in Rome, advancing his career while advising future leaders on proper conduct. Why did he mention certain things? What did he omit? What political image (or self-consciously enduring myth) was he creating for himself? There are few antique documents as fascinating and to boot it is a literary masterpiece of clear exposition and rapidly moving narrative. Once you read it - and it must be read carefully and with references to other sources - you will have no doubt that Caesar was one of the greatest leaders of all time: afterall, his name is the basis for Tzar as well as Kaiser!

Then there are the details. What stick out in my mind are individual tales of bravery as well as foolishness, rendered in detail as vivid as a novel, and the ever-present possibility of failure or even disaster from which Caesar always manages to pull victory at the decisive moment; of course, there are the many instances of brutality in a time of different standards of military conduct. Then there is the siege of Alesia. To protect his troops and starve out the enemy (and the charismatic Gaul, Vercingetorix), Caesar at Alesia had in a matter of days not only to build a surrounding rampart facing in, but also one facing outwards (14 miles in curcumference!), to ward off the last-stand of the bravest of the Gauls. Finally, to break the spirit of small revolts after Alesia, Caesar cut off the hands of all the Bellevoci who took up arms in a desperate, last gambit that Caesar feared would repeat itself in innumerable city-tribes as his consulship ended. It worked.

And there are many characters who figure later in the great civil wars that destroyed the last remnant of the Republic: Brutus, Labienus, Mark Antony, and Cicero's brother Quintus Tullius. You get glimpses of them as men as well as military leaders who later opposed Caesar.

As with much in Classical Civilization, the more you know the more you love it. And the more this period of diversity looks like a metaphor, or example, for the present. There is a good reason why the educations of scholars in the humanities (as well as in the sicneces) and diplomates began with the Classical era - read this and see how relevant it still is, in light of the War in Irak. This is one of the most important documents from the period.

Warmly recommended. If you are predispoosed, it will influence the way you think of contemporary events.

Many of the ancient works with which we are acustom were written by men far removed from the events which they were writing about, either by space or time. Here, we have a dramatic account of the coquest of Gaul(modern France and Belgium) written by the man who conquered it, Julius Caesar. He eloquently takes us from his early campaigns against Helvetii invaders to the climatic seige of Alesia seven years later. Throughout, Caesar keeps our interest with vivid descriptions of not only battles, but also customs, architecture, and politics of the conquer peoples. He is a magnificent story-teller, and I found it hard to believe that this was not written by a modern historian. Because these "commentaries" were written at the time of the campaign, they have a certain honesty about them that something like memoirs do not. Though there is a somewhat obvious slant to the Roman side, it does not take away from the quality of the reporting. As with most ancient works, the reader needs to be somewhat aware of the exaggeration that takes place, as the Romans always seem to be facing incredible odds. It is clear from his writing that Caesar views the unwavering courage of the Roman legionaire as the reason for all his victories, even in the face of overwhelming enemy numbers. Among the more interesting sections of the work are his descriptions of the different cultures, especially the differences between the Gauls who had been somewhat Romanized, and the still barbarian Germans, who even though he respected them as warriors, still managed to defeat pretty soundly.

What really makes this work so personable is that Caesar is writing about his own actions, and is discussing events and people who will later play an important part in Caesar's life and death, yet at this time are insignificant, or nearly so. Because he writes in the third person, this has the feeling that it was written well after the events occurred by someone who knew Caesar's fate, and it makes you stop and think occassionally that when he wrote this work, Caesar did not know what awaited him, and that makes it all the more interesting. It is simply a masterpiece of ancient history, and a must read for a history buff of any time period.

Julius Caesar puts out a very straight-forward narrative of his campaigns in Gaul and his invasion of Britain. For those of us that insist on reading history "fresh" history, this book is a must-read foundation. Aside from his obvious martial talents, Caesar also has a talent for writing clear concise accounts in words that anyone can understand, without sacrificing the subtlety of his points.

For those who prefer a color commentary on Caesar's exploits in Gaul, look for "Caesar Against the Celts" by Ramon Jimenez -- another great read on this topic. Not only does Jimenez add character depth to Caesar's accounts, but he brings to light likely points of exhageration and ommission on Caesar's part.

I absolutely enjoyed reading this 2000 year old play by play campaign account of Caesar and his conquering legions in Gaul. The text is anything but boring which you might expect from your experience with latin readings from highschool. It has intrigue, treachery, fighting and spectacular engineering feats of a modern war novel. Caesar relays all of this in the most non-chalant manner as if there was little effort involved. From building a bridge across the Rhine in 20 days to the 14 to 10 mile line long seige fortification at Alesia, it testified to the awesome capabilities of the Roman army in addition to it's fighting prowess. We also see Caesar at his best: when the situation turn to mush (sometimes due to his own lack of forsight) Caesar would not only prevent disaster but frequently completely reverses it and turns it into a victory. One wonders how history would have unfolded if Caesar had been destroyed with his legions at the Sabine River by the Nervii....
However, part of the attraction to the book is also because Caesar wrote it to be a great propaganda piece for himself. Those Roman historians out there know better not to take Caesar's word on everything point and try to read between the lines. After all Ceasar conquest of Gaul was stepping stone in his grand plan to achieve absolute power over Rome (not that Pompey was slacking either) which explains why Caesar had to achive a decesive victory in Gaul at any cost.
As military history text it is one of the better ones of its time because of its attention to detail (terrain, weapons, tactics and logistics) and Caesar's habit of being present in most of the battles. There are some general maps of the important regions in appendix but it is lacking in tactical diagrams and one as has rely on the text to get a picture of the fighting. For more detailed analysis of the military aspects of Caesar's career and better situation and tactical maps I would recommend T. A. Dodge's "Caesar". However, the latter is not a light read and not recommended for beginners in ancient history.

I found this book very hard to put down once I finished the introduction. Caesar's writing style is crisp (and unique - he writes in the third person) and blatantly political. The best parts of the book are his descriptions of the customs and habits of the various peoples, and the self laudatory comments that pepper the narrative. An opportunity to see into the mind of one of history's most fantastic figures.