Caesar's 'gallic Wars'

[Favonius Cornelius]

Taken in whole, can anyone comment on how accurate and factual Caesar's books have turned out to be in conjunction with archaeological evidence and critical thought?

Edited September 26, 2006 by Favonius Cornelius

[Ursus]

Not an expert in this field, but from what I've read Caesar was pretty close to the mark ... even if he did misinterpret some things from his own cultural perspective, and even allowing the fact he was trying to put a negative spin on

a wartime enemy.

[Lacertus]

This is interesting question. I noted that Caesar made Celts more ordinary then in really life. Of course I cannot know about really Celts but there are archaeological finds and they can say anything about them. And I found a few mistakes (or overstatement)

Caesar wrote that Celts couldn

[Felix Marcellus]

Caesar was mostly on the mark. I'm not an expert by the way. I have limited knowledge here. I do know some historians definitely question what he wrote "or didn't write" about the Battle of Gergova. Clearly a Roman defeat. Caesar doesn't really admit to that in his works.

If he didn't accurately describe this event I'm more than positive he didn't accurately describe others. You just have to corroborate his work with others.

 

Take everything with a grain of salt.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Can anyone come up with specific instances where Caesar vilified the Gauls in an attempt to rationalize his conquest?

 

If Caesar is so accurate, would this make him one of the greatest of ancient historians?

[Lacertus]

If Caesar is so accurate, would this make him one of the greatest of ancient historians?

 

If you read Caesar book you could note that it look like fiction and really very interesting. Wonderful language and reach imagination. Good author in one word. Historian...? There are many interesting facts in his book but I sure a part of them really fiction. But this can say about other historians too.

[Felix Marcellus]

Can anyone come up with specific instances where Caesar vilified the Gauls in an attempt to rationalize his conquest?

 

If Caesar is so accurate, would this make him one of the greatest of ancient historians?

Personally, I don't know if he ever did. I would think he wouldn't need to villify them since Rome already feared them so much. Didn't seem to be really much opposition (from the population anyway) to his subduiing them. Gaul and Rome already had a lot of history between them. Gaul had nearly sacked Rome once already. ONly a bribe saved them. The Gauls villified themselves quite enough before Caesar came into the picture.

[Primus Pilus]

Caesar is generally quite subtle in his style and while always giving an impression that treachery is impending at any moment, he is quite low key in his villification of the Gauls. However he does make it quite clear that everything he does is in reaction to one event or another and not because he is an aggressor in any shape or form.

 

I suppose the following passage sets the stage. Before this, essentially the very beginning of 'De Bello Gallico' Caesar points out that the Helvetti had every intention of conquering all of Gaul for their own possession (setting the stage that his intervention is required). Which brings the reader to...

 

Caesar book 1 Chapter 11

 

The Helvetii had by this time led their forces over through the narrow defile and the territories of the Sequani, and had arrived at the territories of the Aedui, and were ravaging their lands. The Aedui, as they could not defend themselves and their possessions against them, send embassadors to Caesar to ask assistance, [pleading] that they had at all times so well deserved of the Roman people, that their fields ought not to have been laid waste - their children carried off into slavery - their towns stormed, almost within sight of our army. At the same time the Ambarri, the friends and kinsmen of the Aedui, apprize Caesar, that it was not easy for them, now that their fields had been devastated, to ward off the violence of the enemy from their towns: the Allobroges likewise, who had villages and possessions on the other side of the Rhone, betake themselves in flight to Caesar, and assure him that they had nothing remaining, except the soil of their land. Caesar, induced by these circumstances, decides, that he ought not to wait until the Helvetii, after destroying all the property of his allies, should arrive among the Santones.

 

 

He has harsh words for the Belgae and other northern tribes such as the Veneti, after he deals with the problem of Ariovistus. Essentially he paints the Gauls as an ungrateful and untrustworthy lot.

[Favonius Cornelius]

points out that the Helvetti had every intention of conquering all of Gaul for their own possession

 

 

 

Actually, what IS the historian consensus on the actual final goal of the Helvetti?

[P.Clodius]

In the days before TV, radio, newspapers etc., there was no mass media. One of the best methods of keeping people informed was to write and have copies distributed. Caesar would probably laugh if he knew he was being refered to as a historian today. He wrote to counter what was said about him by his political enemies in Rome. He wrote to keep his name, his actions, and his politics fresh in the minds the various assembly's and comitia. What was unique was his style of writing. He refered to himself always in the 3rd person, like someone else was writing not him. He also wrote (his commentaries) in an unembelished style, to the point and concise. Caesar's latin was praised by none other than Cicero as being without equal.

[Skarr]

I agree here with Clodius. Caesar was bent upon becoming one of the greatest Romans the world had ever seen and was determined to leave a mark for posterity. I'm sure he took great pains to be appear neutral and seem logical, even dispassionate in his descriptions, as an observer of great events, with the subtle undercurrent that he was the main catalyst responsible for those events. Writing in the third person about your own acts and deeds seems less boastful and appears 'greater' in the eyes of the reader than saying I did this or that... Caesar was well aware of the enmity of various folk who could not brook his success or his victories and while he could not personally stand before them and respond, his commentaries were a subtle way of telling these people.. Look at what I have accomplished and let the facts speak for themselves on whether I'm great or not. There is no doubt about it then as well as now, that Caesar was a unique man, truly great and that's why we are so fascinated by him, even after 2,000 years. If there's one person I would have liked to meet from ancient history, that would be Caesar, my first choice, even over Alexander. He was truly intelligent and far ahead of his time.

[Primus Pilus]

Whether he intended to be a historian or not is really beside the point. His attempt at propoganda left us with one of the greatest historical records on some of the most important events in human history. Tainted by self promotion or not, Caesar's words are no less informative than those deliberate historical accounts of Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Polybius, etc.

[P.Clodius]

Whether he intended to be a historian or not is really beside the point. His attempt at propoganda left us with one of the greatest historical records on some of the most important events in human history. Tainted by self promotion or not, Caesar's words are no less informative than those deliberate historical accounts of Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Polybius, etc.

 

 

Here, here.... Without the Commentaries our understanding would be less and they're truly a joy to read. I wish some other of his stuff (he was a prolific writer) was available.

[Augur]

If Caesar is so accurate, would this make him one of the greatest of ancient historians?

Despite my admiration for Caesar and his surviving works, to place him among "the greatest" of historians seems excessive. Among the eletes "accuracy" alone is not what defines greatness, and in Caesar's case his "accuracy" must always be questioned in light of his motives, sometimes obvious, often obscure -- thus the unending love/hate-Caesar arguments that crowd this site. Nor can "greatness" be defined soley as a function of "style," bad history beautifully written is still junk. But my greatest reservation about the "greatness" of Caesar's history is that the scope of the history about which he writes is so limited. The 8 years of war in Gaul were important, true, but they are only one small piece of a broader story that was part of an even broader story. Caesar is arguably "one of the greatest" in a number of categories, but to rank him among the greatest ancient historians is unsound.

[Germanicus]

An antiquarian bookshop in Melbourne is selling an awsome copy of the Gallic wars, a translation published in the late 19th century, great condition, and one of only 1200 printed. Has really good engravings throughout based on Caesars descriptions - only a paltry $650 AUD.