Customer Reviews

Julius Caesar

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

According to Philip Freeman's account, Julius Caesar may have been the most misunderstood man in history. He owed his military and political career to the plebians, the lower class Romans with whom he sided. By doing this he won the never-ending antipathy of the patrician families who controlled the Roman senate.

As a general Caesar led from the front. When he was in danger of losing a battle to the patrician forces in Spain, he charged the opposing line single-handedly, embarrassing his men into redoubling their efforts, snatching victory from defeat. We know as much as we do about Caesar thanks to his own account of the GALLIC WARS, which has survived, and Freeman quotes from it extensively. Perhaps Caesar's most impressive victory was the BATTLE OF ALESIA, where he fought a two front battle against the Gauls under Vercingetorix whom he'd cornered in the city, only to be confronted by 100,000 Gaulish soldiers in his rear.

We see Caesar rise from a poor patrician family living in the slums of Rome to work his way up from military tribune, to sequester, to aedile, to preaetor and eventually consul of Rome. One of his first official acts was to redistribute land to the plebians and the Roman soldiers, some of which was taken from the rich patrician families who controlled the Senate. On his way to becoming consul, Caesar was in charge of keeping the Appian Way in good repair. Caesar was not only a great general and politician, he was also an engineer, a great public speaker, and a lawyer.

We also get a good look at the Roman Civil Wars. At first, Caesar gained power through a triumvirate with the great general Pompey and Crassus a rich Roman senator. But because of his successes in Gaul, Pompey became jealous and eventually went to war with Caesar after Caesar crossed the Rubicon, a sort of demilitarized zone most generals knew not to cross. Pompey had a large army, more than twice as large as Caesars. When Caesar confronted him in Greece, it looked like the jig was up once again. It was only because of his supreme confidence and superior tactical skills that Caesar was able to defeat the great Pompey.

As you read this biography, you will be amazed at the number of times, Caesar snatched victory from defeat. He should've lost in Gaul, he should've lost to the patrician forces in Spain, he should've been decimated in Egypt. Pompey had him defeated but was too cautious to move in for the kill. Caesar's undoing came when he had defeated the patrician forces and come home to accept his laurels. He was given four triumphs (victory parades) and was made dictator for ten years. During one of the triumphs his soldiers complained that Caesar was spending too much money that should've rightfully gone to his old soldiers. Caesar had two of them put to death and sacrificed to the god Mars. He let the laurels go to his head, and the conspirators were worried he wanted to be king.

My one complaint about the book is that we don't get a real good look at the plot to assassinate Caesar. We don't really know who these people were, other than that Brutus was a former favorite. It's hard to understand why Caesar's former supporters were part of the plot, other than that they were worried Caesar was about to bring down the five hundred-year-old Republic. But as Caesar always said, "The Republic has been dead for years."

I was a history major in college but I never had a firm grip on the civil war between Caesar and Pompey until I read this book, and I never really knew what a great man Caesar was. There's certainly evidence to support Alexander Hamilton's contention that Julius Caesar was the greatest man who ever lived.

Philip Freeman's Julius Caesar is a fascinating and well-written book. Prior to reading Freeman's book, what I knew about Caesar I had learned from Shakespeare. While Shakespeare was a wonderful playwright, he was not a historian. Freeman's book provides a highly readable account of Caesar's fascinating life-- from master military leader and engineer (he designed, and he and his troops constructed, the first bridge across the deep, wide, and swiftly flowing Rhine in just a few days) to his years as chief priest of Rome when among other things he redesigned the calendar to the one we still basically use today. As I read the book, I was struck by the similarity of some of Caesar's campaigns to the present-day war in Iraq.

As Freeman states in his introduction, his book doesn't come to "praise Caesar overmuch nor to bury him among the tyrants of history." Rather we are left to form our own opinion of this controversial man. I not only recommend this book to novice Caesar historians, such as myself, but also to more knowledgeable readers of ancient Rome who will undoubtedly learn something new about this remarkable man and his times.

Prior to reading this book, I knew very little about Caesar and next to nothing about the Roman Republic. This book certainly changed that. Personally, I'm a fan of history in its purest form: meticulously researched, free of romantic speculation, and presented as objectively as possible. However, even though this book is written more like an action novel than a textbook, I enjoyed it wholeheartedly. I couldn't put the book down and despite being a fairly slow reader, finished the book in 2 days. I highly recommend this to anyone looking to get started with Roman history and anyone else merely looking for a fast paced, action packed story of one of history's most incredible figures.

I was looking for a basic grounding in Roman history and customs and Caesar's exploits in the 1st century BC. It came down to Freeman's and Goldsworthy's biographies. This one is 400 pages and Goldsworthy's is 600 pages. In the end I decided to read both, beginning with Freeman.

Freeman's biography moved smoothly and succinctly along, pausing when appropriate to explore Roman mores and the rather strange (to the modern eye) interactions and motivations of Caesar, Pompey, Crassius, Cato and Cicero. It remained straightforward and interesting throughout with no pretense of originality or self-importance.

I was disappointed with Goldsworthy. He often seemed ponderous and verbose, as if trying to impress a scholar but offering a less well told story in an extra 200 pages.

Go with Freeman and skip Goldsworthy.

Countless books have been written about Julius Caesar. In many of them, anecdotes and rumors have crept in and masqueraded as facts. One of the things I liked about this excellent piece is that the author takes on some of these myths and documents the truth behind them. For example, there was a famous incident when Caesar declined to rise when he was approached by a deputation of Senators, as tradition and respect required. Caesar later put it about that this was due to his illness rather than his attempt to behave like a king. Some authors have adopted Caesar's alibi. Not so, according to Freeman, who provides sources showing that Caesar, indeed, wanted to be King of Rome in name as well as in fact.

I thought that the most insightful part of the book was the focus on Caesar's disdain and disapproval for many of the excesses of the Roman Republic. For example, (while still a mere Senator) Caesar introduced legislation that was intended to put a stop to the hallowed custom whereby a Roman Governor would plunder the province to which he was assigned. Caesar's law on this subject endured throughout the many centuries of the Roman Empire as a model of sound legal drafting. In point of fact, the author makes a convincing case showing that when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, surely knowing that the Republic would never be the same, he did so in the belief that the Republic had to be fundamentally restructured and modernized. Caesar rightly viewed the Roman Republic as an oligarchy designed to allow a small clique of rich Senators to maintain their dominance and plunder Rome's neighbors. The city-state government, satisfactory for governing Rome and the nearby environs, was completely inadequate to govern Rome's far-flung empire, or even just Italy. Caesar knew this, and for a time sought to correct these deficiencies.

Other reviewers have characterized this piece as being pro-Caesar, and this is mostly true. I will say that the fairly detailed analysis of Caesar's conquest of Gaul left me with a strong belief that Caesar inflicted a holocaust upon the lives of millions of Gauls mainly to achieve his own personal wealth and fame. The author notes that Caesar, in common with Rome in general, did not try to justify his warring and conquest as being for the "good" of those Rome conquered. To the contrary, Caesar acknowledged that by fighting him for their independence and freedom, the Gauls did what he himself would have done in their place. This "them or us" philosophy no doubt derived from the horrendous penalties for losing a war -- death to most of the males, enslavement or death to the women and children. These were the ancient rules of war to which Rome invariably adhered. Romans believed, as did Caesar, that it was better to ravage and subjugate Gaul than to allow a strong Gaul to someday menace Italy and Rome. Nowhere does the author make a case that Caesar tried to avoid warfare in Gaul by trying other means of subduing Gaul as a peaceful province under Roman control. Perhaps it was impossible. Certainly I found no evidence in this piece that Caesar made any great effort to avoid the wars there. His warring in Gaul brought Caesar fabulous wealth and established him as the First Man in Rome. Which was surely his objective all along.

This is an unusually readable piece that does a good and thorough job of acquainting the reader with Caesar. The author explains why there are gaps in our knowledge of certain parts of Caesar's life, and when he speculates about these gaps he makes sure that the reader knows it. Overall, an excellent book. Highly recommended. RJB.

Phillip Freeman's Julius Caesar is a highly accessible, fast pasted and fascinating read on the life of the emperor that Alexander Hamilton called the "the greatest man that ever lived."

There is no purple prose or pretentious writing here and the history is brought to life with vivid details and historical background that other authors on the subject have neglected. For example; I've read many books about Rome and have been a bit annoyed that the authors will often give--let's say--great detail about the war against the Gauls without really telling you who the Gauls were and where they came from. Freeman tries to remedy this and gives you the necessary background to see Rome in the larger context of its neighbors and its times. Gaul is just one little example but Freeman also gives you important and entertaining background on the socioeconomic climate in Rome, The Druids of Britain, the inner working of the Senate and lots of other swell stuff.

I have written this review because when I looked at the aggregate review of the books I notice that it had only gotten three stars. Having read the book and really enjoyed it (I read a lot about Roman History) I couldn't understand the oddly low score. Then I read the reviews and found that the three stars were based on two five stars reviews and a single one star review that was written by a troglodyte that had no idea what they were talking about.

I just want to try and remedy one of life's minor but obnoxious injustices.

Philip Freeman chronologically walks through the life and legacy of Julius Caesar. Freeman usually provides enough background information to help his audience better understand the environment in which Caesar was operating. Readers progressively discover a complex leader who was intelligent, bold, fearless, ambitious, visionary, charming, and sensitive but also possessed ruthless and autocratic traits. To summarize, "Julius Caesar" by Freeman is a compelling invitation to (re) discover an exceptional individual who has left an indelible mark on the history of mankind.

If you've already read a dozen books about Julius Caesar, you can probably pass this one by without missing any information. But if you do, what you'll miss is one of the few I've found that's not just informative but truly a pleasure to read. Freeman's prose is clear and not at all verbose (contrast this book with Frank McLynn's biography of Marcus Aurelius and you'll want to buy Freeman a nice lunch); and better still, the narrative he constructs communicates a very real enjoyment of its material. (Again the contrast with McLynn, who sneers at his subject throughout, is instructive.)

Especially welcome are Freeman's easy to follow and compelling accounts of Caesar's campaigns in Gaul and the portraits he includes of such figures as Cicero, Pompey and a number of Roman generals who support and/or oppose Caesar as his march to supreme power progresses. Freeman has the novelist's respect for the characters who people the story, and even the bit players (fans of HBO's Rome should watch for an appearance by Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo) are imbued with personality.

This is not History for historians. Ironically, given its subject, Freeman's book is more democratic in its sensibility and approach. Five stars, highest rating. (I hope the author does his own book about Marcus Aurelius sometime.)

This book ends with the line:

"When Thomas Jefferson showed Alexander Hamilton his portraits of Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and John Locke as the three greatest men in world history, Hamilton, a republican to the core, spoke for many when he shook his head and reluctantly proclaimed:"

"The greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar."

I set out to read this book because I wanted to compare the two greatest "men" of history, both with the same initials (using the modern lexicon) "JC," both having a great effect on our modern calander, both involved in books freqently read today and oth born within a generation of each other some 2000 years ago

Although I consider myself fairly well educated with a great interest in history, this was a real eye-opener and a delight to read. Like most, I knew a little of Caesar but had no idea of his greatness. This was a man so talented in so many ways that to call him the greatest man who ever lived 2000 years after his death is by no means an exaggeration. (I can say this because I do not classify the "other JC," strictly speaking, as a man).

Caesar fought the greatest armies in the world in five major contests, conquering almost all of Europe, Spain, North Africa, Egypt and Greece, each time he was outnumbered, often massively, yet he never lost to barbarian or Roman. On the political front he defeated all of his talented Roman enemies. He was well read and wrote what could be considered the World's first modern book, still read today, "Gallic Wars."

In a world known for unbelievable cruelty and ruthlessness, he almost invents forgiveness of enemies before Christ mentions it in the Sermon on the Mount (though with Caesar it seems to be more politically calculated).

Enough about Caesar, let's talk a little about this book's author, Phillip Freeman though forgetting the author in favor of his subject may be the greatest complement you can pay an author!)

Freeman writes a compelling, interesting book and although a college professor and Harvard PhD he does not sound like one (again, a great complement). I was very pleased that he did not, like so many other authors get bogged down in details but stuck with a sweeping story line. He writes this straight up like a modern novel using the most impeccable classical sources.

If you are an expert on the Rome this might be beneath you. But for anyone else with an interest in history and how the world works you should find this book a delight.

by Mary Harrsch

Philip Freeman's "Julius Caesar" is a comprehensive biography of the Roman conqueror that is as straightforward and readable as the general's own "Gallic Wars". Freeman not only stitches together the various ancient accounts of Caesar's exploits but adds context to his activities by including helpful background information about his various adversaries pulled from a wealth of modern scholarship. He recounts Caesar's conquest of the Celtic tribes of Gaul against a vivid tapestry of the Celtic culture gleaned from such works as Rankin's "Celts and the Classical World, Cunliff's "The Ancient Celts", and Green's "The World of the Druids". I especially found the defeats or near-defeats suffered at the hands of the Celts as fascinating as Caesar's famous victory at Alesia.

The details of a surprise attack by Belgic tribes was particularly intense and sadly ironic because Caesar was essentially saved by his future Civil War opponent, Labienus.

"He [Caesar] had been caught unprepared for a surprise assault of such force and speed. His army would surely have been overwhelmed had it not been for the training and experience they had gained during the past year. There was no time to call his officers together and form a plan , so each organized whatever men were nearest and struck back at the Belgae. With a herculean effort, the Roman troops on the eastern side of the battlefield were able to push the Atrebates and then the Vironmandui back across the river with heavy losses on both sides, but the Nervii on the western end would not yield and pressed the Romans until they fell back in a hopeless struggle to save their camp. The Nervii stormed over the uncompleted walls of the Roman stronghold, killing many of the legionaries and threatening to outflank the Roman forces who had already crossed the river. Caesar had been rushing madly to every corner of the battlefield, but when he saw the dire threat at the camp, he leapt from his horse, grabbed a sword, and joined the fray."

Although Caesar's men rallied with their commander beside them calling them by name, their plight was dire. They managed to stop the encirclement and were presently reinforced by the the arrival of the two legions that had escorted the baggage train. But the real turning point of the battle hinged on the counterattack led by Labienus who, seeing Caesar's desperate struggle, dashed back across the river.

"His arrival brought such hope to the beleaguered men around Caesar that even those who had been seriously wounded propped themselves against their shields for support to continue to fight."

With the tide of battle now turned the Belgic warriors demonstrated their own ferocity and determination to remain an unconquered people.

"As the hours passed, the Romans slowly tightened the circle on them, hacking and killing as each Belgic warrior fought with all his might. In the end, the few Nervii who were left stood on a mound formed by their fallen comrades and - pulling the Roman spears from the dead bodies of their friends - threw them back down at the legions."

These images brought echoes of Thermopylae to mind.

Many critics of Caesar's activities in Gaul have portrayed Caesar and his commanders as ruthless perpetrators of genocide without significant provocation but Freeman, using the details of engagements retold in Caesar's Gallic Wars, recounts numerous incidents of Gallic duplicity after peace agreements were concluded. But Freeman also points out that Caesar did not delude himself with proclamations that he was bringing "civilization" to the Gauls. Instead he said Caesar candidly observed, "Human nature everywhere yearns for freedom and hates submitting to domination by another."

"The Romans never pretended that they were bringing freedom or a better way of life to the peoples they conquered." Freeman states. "They frankly admitted that they were only interested in increasing their own power, wealth, and security through conquest."

I have previously only read isolated passages of accounts of Caesar's Alexandrian Wars so I also found that portion of Freeman's book particularly fascinating. Many books and films about this period seem to omit most references to intervention by Cleopatra's sister Arsinoe and her commander Ganymedes. Many accounts of the confrontation between the Alexandrians and Caesar seem to focus on the activities of the Egyptian general Achillas and the spoiled child-pharaoh Ptolemy XIII. But Freeman recounts how Achillas was actually murdered by Ganymedes and most of the near disasters suffered by Caesar's forces, beseiged in the palace, were masterminded by this militarily astute courtier. Freeman also details the urban warfare that Caesar was forced to conduct in Alexandria that sounded eerily familiar to anyone who watches CNN regularly. I was also surprised to read that the often-portrayed luxurious "honeymoon" cruise up the Nile was a deliberate show of military force since the royal barge was accompanied by over 400 ships crammed with Roman troops. I am now more convinced than ever that Caesar's effort to father a child with Cleopatra was a deliberate act to obtain a client king related by blood to secure Egypt without annexing it and risking its plunder by a corrupt proconsular governor in the future.

Freeman mentioned Caesar's epilepsy only in passing early on in the text. This surprised me since I have long suspected that a head wound Caesar sustained on campaign was actually the cause of the increased frequency of seizures Caesar suffered toward the end of his life and perhaps one of the reasons for the apparent lack of political judgment he exercised at the time of the Africa triumph when he included unpopular tableaus depicting the deaths of Scipio and Cato. Freeman only observed that Caesar showed particularly bad taste in celebrating a triumph over his Roman opponents and how this had upset his normally adoring crowd. There were at least four significant seizures documented by the ancient sources (Plutarch, Suetonius, Appian, and Pliny) that modern experts conclude, according to J. R. Hughes, Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, "were probably complex partial seizures: (1) while listening to an oration by Cicero, (2) in the Senate while being offered the Emperor's Crown, and in military campaigns, (3) near Thapsus (North Africa) and (4) Corduba (Spain)."

Drs. J.G Gomez, J.A. Kotler, and J.B. Long, Division of Neurological Surgery, Holy Cross Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, conducted a pathological analysis of Caesar's reported symptoms and behavioral changes in 1995 and suggested he may have been suffering from a brain tumor. "The patient had late onset of seizures in the last two years of his life, headaches, personality changes. Upon reexamination of existing Julius Caesar iconography, busts, statues and minted coins no skull deformities have been noted. Identification of a skull deformity as described by Suetonius would have confirmed the suspicion of meningioma involving the convexity of the cerebral hemispheres. Meningioma or slow-growing supratentorial glioma may well have been responsible for this man's illness."

In any event, I think a man who had demonstrated such a superior grasp of Roman politics in the past would not have committed such blunders on purpose or because success had simply "gone to his head".

Freeman included a wonderful compedium at the end of the book that listed his sources for various sections within the text that is a valuable reference for readers wishing to learn more about specific events in Caesar's life. A comprehensive bibliography and index rounded out the text's impressive list of source materials. There were only two things contained in the book that gave me pause. One was a reference to a pilum not being designed as a throwing weapon but rather a thrusting weapon. I think this must have been a lapse in editing as Freeman was comparing Roman weapons with other weapons of the ancient world. Alexander's Macedonians carried sarissas, that, unlike commonly used Greek spears, were not designed for throwing but for thrusting. Likewise, the Roman gladius was designed for thrusting rather than slashing. But a Roman pilum was designed to bend on impact to make it difficult to remove and Freeman pointed this out. So, I would think a weapon so designed was obviously intended primarily for throwing. The other error was the inclusion of an image of a sculptured head of Lucius Cornelius Sulla labeled as Gaius Marius in the photo insert section. It was provided by the Bridgeman Art Library and perhaps the labeling error was theirs. The head is in the permanent collection of the Glyptotek in Munich, Germany as indicated but according to an overwhelming majority of people on the web, including the scholars who maintain Vroma.org, the head belongs to Marius' arch enemy, Sulla. See http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/optimates.html.