What do you think?
Rate this book
Caesar: Civil War, Book 3
In the third and final book which he wrote about his campaigns in the Civil War, Caesar tells the story of his fight with Pompey in 48 B.C. which ended in the rout of the latter at Pharsalus, perhaps Caesar's most notable military victory. The book ends with Caesar pursuing Pompey to Egypt. Here began Caesar's celebrated affair with Cleopatra.
254 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 48
206 people are currently reading
10036 people want to read
About the author
Gaius Julius Caesar
2,021 books550 followersborn 12 July 100 BC
died 15 March 44 BC
Statesman and historian Julius Caesar, fully named Gaius Julius Caesar, general, invaded Britain in 55 BC, crushed the army of the politician Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in 48 BC, pursued other enemies to Egypt, installed Cleopatra as queen in 47 BC, and returned to Rome, and the people in 45 BC gave him a mandate to rule as dictator for life; Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus feared that he intended to establish a monarchy and led a group of republicans, who on 15 March 44 BC murdered him.
Marcus Licinius Crassus joined Caesar and Pompey in the first triumvirate to challenge the power of the senate in 60 BC.
Pompey with Caesar and Crassus formed a ruling triumvirate from 60 BC to 53 BC, but Caesar later defeated Pompey.
Caesar conquered Iberian peoples of Aquitania in 56 BC.
Cassius led members of the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar.
Brutus conspired to assassinate Caesar.
After his assassination, Gaius Octavius, his grandnephew, in 44 BC took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, to whom English texts often refer simply as Octavian.
He notably authored Latin prose. He played a critical role in the events to the demise and the rise of the empire.
In 60 BC, Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus formed an alliance that dominated for several years. Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger with the frequent support of Marcus Tullius Cicero among the Optimates within the senate opposed their attempts to amass power as Populares.
Victories of Caesar in the Gallic wars, completed before 51 BC, extended territory to the English Channel and the Rhine. Caesar first then built a bridge across the Rhine and crossed the channel.
After the death of Crassus in 53 BC, his rival realigned with the senate, but these achievements granted him unmatched military power and threatened to eclipse the standing. With the Gallic wars concluded, the senate ordered Caesar to step from his military.
Caesar refused the order and instead crossed the Rubicon with the thirteenth legion, left his province, and illegally entered Italy under arms to mark his defiance in 49 BC. Civil war resulted, and victory put Caesar him in an unrivalled position of power and influence.
Julius Caesar assumed control of government and afterward began a program of social reforms, including the creation of the calendar. He centralized the bureaucracy, and proclamation "in perpetuity" eventually gave him additional authority. Nevertheless, people resolved not the underlying conflicts, and on the ides, 15 March 44 BC, rebellious senators assassinated Caesar.
We know much from own accounts of military campaigns of Caesar and from other contemporary sources, mainly the letters and speeches of Cicero and the writings of Gaius Sallustius Crispus. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus and Mestrius Plutarchus wrote the later biographies, also major sources. Many people consider supreme military greatness of Caesar.
People regarded Caesar during his time of the best orators and prose authors in Latin; even Cicero spoke highly of his rhetoric and style. Only war commentaries of Caesar survived. From other works, other authors quote a few sentences. He wrote his funeral oration for Julia, his paternal aunt, among his lost works. Cicero published praise; in response, he wrote Anticato , a document, to defame Cato. Ancient sources also mention poems of Julius Caesar.
A new series of civil wars broke, and people never restored the constitutional government. Octavian, adopted heir of Gaius Julius Caesar, defeated his opponents in the civil war and afterward rose to sole power as Augustus. Octavian set about solidifying his power, and the era of the empire began.
died 15 March 44 BC
Statesman and historian Julius Caesar, fully named Gaius Julius Caesar, general, invaded Britain in 55 BC, crushed the army of the politician Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in 48 BC, pursued other enemies to Egypt, installed Cleopatra as queen in 47 BC, and returned to Rome, and the people in 45 BC gave him a mandate to rule as dictator for life; Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus feared that he intended to establish a monarchy and led a group of republicans, who on 15 March 44 BC murdered him.
Marcus Licinius Crassus joined Caesar and Pompey in the first triumvirate to challenge the power of the senate in 60 BC.
Pompey with Caesar and Crassus formed a ruling triumvirate from 60 BC to 53 BC, but Caesar later defeated Pompey.
Caesar conquered Iberian peoples of Aquitania in 56 BC.
Cassius led members of the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar.
Brutus conspired to assassinate Caesar.
After his assassination, Gaius Octavius, his grandnephew, in 44 BC took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, to whom English texts often refer simply as Octavian.
He notably authored Latin prose. He played a critical role in the events to the demise and the rise of the empire.
In 60 BC, Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus formed an alliance that dominated for several years. Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger with the frequent support of Marcus Tullius Cicero among the Optimates within the senate opposed their attempts to amass power as Populares.
Victories of Caesar in the Gallic wars, completed before 51 BC, extended territory to the English Channel and the Rhine. Caesar first then built a bridge across the Rhine and crossed the channel.
After the death of Crassus in 53 BC, his rival realigned with the senate, but these achievements granted him unmatched military power and threatened to eclipse the standing. With the Gallic wars concluded, the senate ordered Caesar to step from his military.
Caesar refused the order and instead crossed the Rubicon with the thirteenth legion, left his province, and illegally entered Italy under arms to mark his defiance in 49 BC. Civil war resulted, and victory put Caesar him in an unrivalled position of power and influence.
Julius Caesar assumed control of government and afterward began a program of social reforms, including the creation of the calendar. He centralized the bureaucracy, and proclamation "in perpetuity" eventually gave him additional authority. Nevertheless, people resolved not the underlying conflicts, and on the ides, 15 March 44 BC, rebellious senators assassinated Caesar.
We know much from own accounts of military campaigns of Caesar and from other contemporary sources, mainly the letters and speeches of Cicero and the writings of Gaius Sallustius Crispus. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus and Mestrius Plutarchus wrote the later biographies, also major sources. Many people consider supreme military greatness of Caesar.
People regarded Caesar during his time of the best orators and prose authors in Latin; even Cicero spoke highly of his rhetoric and style. Only war commentaries of Caesar survived. From other works, other authors quote a few sentences. He wrote his funeral oration for Julia, his paternal aunt, among his lost works. Cicero published praise; in response, he wrote Anticato , a document, to defame Cato. Ancient sources also mention poems of Julius Caesar.
A new series of civil wars broke, and people never restored the constitutional government. Octavian, adopted heir of Gaius Julius Caesar, defeated his opponents in the civil war and afterward rose to sole power as Augustus. Octavian set about solidifying his power, and the era of the empire began.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 173 reviews
Read
April 24, 2020Asterix led me to The Gallic War and from the conquest of Gaul I tumbled into The Civil War. As it happened so did Caesar so that made two of us.
This volume contains Caesar's commentary on the Civil War and three continuations. The conflict opens with Caesar descending into Italy with his veteran forces, Pompey flees Italy with some levies to Greece. Caesar departs to Spain where he defeats Pompey's forces there and returns to Italy. This takes about a year. Caesar crosses to Greece, but Pompey's forces have naval superiority and interrupt Caesar's troop movements. Pompey amassed a sizeable army but doesn't takes the initiative and eventually Caesar is able to get the rest of his forces over to Greece. He tries to trap Pompey by having a fortified line dug round his position - a line which runs for a total of fifteen miles (p128), Pompey eventually breaks out, the two fight a battle in northern Greece at Pharsalus at which Pompey is completely defeated. Pompey flees, eventually ending up in Egypt where he is decapitated by soldiers of Ptolemy XIII. Caesar in pursuit with a small number of troops turns up, seizes Ptolemy XIII which unsurprisingly brings him into conflict with the Ptolemaic army.
At this point Caesar's narrative ends and from here on there are three continuations apparently written by three different authors: the Alexandrine War which deals with the resolution of the conflict in Egypt, the African War in which Caesar pursues and eventually defeats Scipo and Cato at Thaspus in north Africa and the Spanish War in which Caesar battles Pompey's sons and their army eventually defeating them at the battle of Munda.
The Gallic War and the Civil War commentaries make an interesting pairing. Clemency is suddenly dominant in this book. Caesar wore the velvet glove in Gaul, but the iron fist was always apparent. In his civil war commentaries things are quite different in his own account. Gardner argued in The Gallic War that the commentaries were written in one go in 52 BC, here she suggests that they were written in instalments and released to win the public relations battle. So we see Bibulus burning ships & their crews captured from Caesar (p109) juxtaposed with Caesar making peace overtures to Pompey let us therefore spare both ourselves and Rome; our own losses have given us proof of the power of fortune in war (p110) and to make the contrast apparent Caesar uses an officer of Pompey who he has just captured for the second time as his messenger.
Interestingly though in the Spanish war continuation, which was not written by Caesar, the incivility of a civil war is there: the hands of captured enemy soldiers are cut off and corpses used as a rampart to intimidate the opposition - and a rampart is decorated with the decapitated heads of their comrades.
It has been said that Caesar's skill as a commander was in extricating himself from difficult situations that he had gotten himself into, and this seems more apparent here than in the Gallic wars. Repeatedly Caesar arrives on scene with fewer troops than his opponent, often he runs short of supplies and I wondered repeatedly why he didn't wait or build up his fleet to transport the army in one go. Temperamentally Caesar seems over active, even rash - Suetonius in The Twelve Caesars records that once Caesar took on an enemy warship in a small boat, rowing out and demanding that they surrender - which they did. The anecdote is certainly true to his behaviour in these commentaries.
Pompey is the mystery to me. Perhaps he had no will to fight his former father-in-law, or maybe he wasn't confident in the quality of the troops he was raising, but he certainly seems to have conceded the initiative to Caesar for all his experience in war. I wonder why he waited in Greece for a year while Caesar was defeating his forces in Spain - surely this was the perfect opportunity to attempt to recapture Italy and Rome, and how else could one win a Roman civil war except by a successful march on Rome?
In this way the first part of the civil war comes a cross as a conflict between two states of mind. Caesar, impulsive and active, against Pompey, who by contrast was resigned and passive. This is vividly expressed in the battle of Pharsalus in which Pompey's battle plan is to have his troops (and he has the larger army) stand their ground while Caesar's advance on them thinking that they will be tired while his cavalry outflank them and hopefully win the day. Caesar was mystified by this: it appears to us that he did this without sound reason, for there is a certain eagerness of spirit and an innate keenness in everyone which is inflamed by desire for battle. Generals ought to encourage this, not repress it; nor was it for nothing that the practise began in antiquity of giving the signal on both sides and everyone's raising a war-cry; this was believed both to frighten the enemy and to stimulate one's own men (p152).
This can go to far - Caesars' troops' eagerness gets them into trouble at Gergovia during the Gallic war, but here it works out even when the army rushes into combat at Thaspus before ordered to advance. This could be all part of Caesar's public relations campaign - my army are as irrepressible as racehorses while my opponents were defeated before they even got out of bed in the morning - then again Caesar did win repeatedly so it wasn't all just propaganda.
The emphasis on engineering is not as strong as in The Gallic War although part of a river is diverted in Spain to make a ford and some impressive seeming siege machines are built to capture Marseilles, but the importance of logistics I felt came through more clearly. There is manoeuvring to cut off opponents from water, to place fortified positions to harass troops sent out to gather firewood, and to pressurise the opposition even before battle lines are drawn up.
On one occasion the enemy retaliate in kind, when Ptolemaic forces were besieging Caesar in Alexandria they pump sea water into his water supply - at first Caesar's men are confused - why is our water suddenly salty - until Caesar realises what a dastardly trick those Egyptian-Greeks have played and sets his army to furiously digging wells to find an alternative water source.
What I really found interesting was the curious absence of suicide. Reading Tacitus I got the impression that suicide was the epitome of Roman dignity and morality, that a citizen's worth was known by their ability to select the right moment to dispose of themselves efficiently. By contrast here only Cato kills himself after Thaspus. Every other commander seems happy, when circumstances require, to die in combat or to run away and fight again some other day - no matter how crushing the defeat. It seems that some change in cultural attitudes was taking place over this period. Just a few years later Brutus and Cassius will kill themselves on the field of battle rather than to run and hide as Pompey's sons do after complete defeat at Munda.
The first time I read this I had borrowed it from my local library. It was a Carnegie Library and most Saturday mornings I would trot off up progressively nicer roads, past cherry trees and past one house that had a monkey puzzle tree (quite probably the most incredible and alien living thing I saw in my youth) in their front garden, with a small green satchel over my shoulder. I was young, still in single figures, keen to regularly exchange my three library tickets for fresh reading and grabbed the volume of Caesar. I remember being so overwhelmed by the story of Scaeva and his shield that had been pierced 120 times as he fought to hold off an attack by Pompey's army that I had to draw a picture of the shield with all 120 holes in it. The paper probably showed more hole than shield by the time I had finished. One the same day Caesar's men collected 30,000 arrows that had been shot at their positions, I imagine them counting them out before their commander proud of their valour under fire: I, II, III, IV...CI, CII, CIII...MMMI, MMMII, MMMIII...enough counting to keep Sesame Street busy for many a year.
I'm sorry to disappoint romantics, but Cleopatra (the VIIth to distinguish her from the many other Cleopatras in the family) only gets mentioned once, briefly and very practically as she is left in charge with her younger brother after the death of Ptolemy XIII.
This volume contains Caesar's commentary on the Civil War and three continuations. The conflict opens with Caesar descending into Italy with his veteran forces, Pompey flees Italy with some levies to Greece. Caesar departs to Spain where he defeats Pompey's forces there and returns to Italy. This takes about a year. Caesar crosses to Greece, but Pompey's forces have naval superiority and interrupt Caesar's troop movements. Pompey amassed a sizeable army but doesn't takes the initiative and eventually Caesar is able to get the rest of his forces over to Greece. He tries to trap Pompey by having a fortified line dug round his position - a line which runs for a total of fifteen miles (p128), Pompey eventually breaks out, the two fight a battle in northern Greece at Pharsalus at which Pompey is completely defeated. Pompey flees, eventually ending up in Egypt where he is decapitated by soldiers of Ptolemy XIII. Caesar in pursuit with a small number of troops turns up, seizes Ptolemy XIII which unsurprisingly brings him into conflict with the Ptolemaic army.
At this point Caesar's narrative ends and from here on there are three continuations apparently written by three different authors: the Alexandrine War which deals with the resolution of the conflict in Egypt, the African War in which Caesar pursues and eventually defeats Scipo and Cato at Thaspus in north Africa and the Spanish War in which Caesar battles Pompey's sons and their army eventually defeating them at the battle of Munda.
The Gallic War and the Civil War commentaries make an interesting pairing. Clemency is suddenly dominant in this book. Caesar wore the velvet glove in Gaul, but the iron fist was always apparent. In his civil war commentaries things are quite different in his own account. Gardner argued in The Gallic War that the commentaries were written in one go in 52 BC, here she suggests that they were written in instalments and released to win the public relations battle. So we see Bibulus burning ships & their crews captured from Caesar (p109) juxtaposed with Caesar making peace overtures to Pompey let us therefore spare both ourselves and Rome; our own losses have given us proof of the power of fortune in war (p110) and to make the contrast apparent Caesar uses an officer of Pompey who he has just captured for the second time as his messenger.
Interestingly though in the Spanish war continuation, which was not written by Caesar, the incivility of a civil war is there: the hands of captured enemy soldiers are cut off and corpses used as a rampart to intimidate the opposition - and a rampart is decorated with the decapitated heads of their comrades.
It has been said that Caesar's skill as a commander was in extricating himself from difficult situations that he had gotten himself into, and this seems more apparent here than in the Gallic wars. Repeatedly Caesar arrives on scene with fewer troops than his opponent, often he runs short of supplies and I wondered repeatedly why he didn't wait or build up his fleet to transport the army in one go. Temperamentally Caesar seems over active, even rash - Suetonius in The Twelve Caesars records that once Caesar took on an enemy warship in a small boat, rowing out and demanding that they surrender - which they did. The anecdote is certainly true to his behaviour in these commentaries.
Pompey is the mystery to me. Perhaps he had no will to fight his former father-in-law, or maybe he wasn't confident in the quality of the troops he was raising, but he certainly seems to have conceded the initiative to Caesar for all his experience in war. I wonder why he waited in Greece for a year while Caesar was defeating his forces in Spain - surely this was the perfect opportunity to attempt to recapture Italy and Rome, and how else could one win a Roman civil war except by a successful march on Rome?
In this way the first part of the civil war comes a cross as a conflict between two states of mind. Caesar, impulsive and active, against Pompey, who by contrast was resigned and passive. This is vividly expressed in the battle of Pharsalus in which Pompey's battle plan is to have his troops (and he has the larger army) stand their ground while Caesar's advance on them thinking that they will be tired while his cavalry outflank them and hopefully win the day. Caesar was mystified by this: it appears to us that he did this without sound reason, for there is a certain eagerness of spirit and an innate keenness in everyone which is inflamed by desire for battle. Generals ought to encourage this, not repress it; nor was it for nothing that the practise began in antiquity of giving the signal on both sides and everyone's raising a war-cry; this was believed both to frighten the enemy and to stimulate one's own men (p152).
This can go to far - Caesars' troops' eagerness gets them into trouble at Gergovia during the Gallic war, but here it works out even when the army rushes into combat at Thaspus before ordered to advance. This could be all part of Caesar's public relations campaign - my army are as irrepressible as racehorses while my opponents were defeated before they even got out of bed in the morning - then again Caesar did win repeatedly so it wasn't all just propaganda.
The emphasis on engineering is not as strong as in The Gallic War although part of a river is diverted in Spain to make a ford and some impressive seeming siege machines are built to capture Marseilles, but the importance of logistics I felt came through more clearly. There is manoeuvring to cut off opponents from water, to place fortified positions to harass troops sent out to gather firewood, and to pressurise the opposition even before battle lines are drawn up.
On one occasion the enemy retaliate in kind, when Ptolemaic forces were besieging Caesar in Alexandria they pump sea water into his water supply - at first Caesar's men are confused - why is our water suddenly salty - until Caesar realises what a dastardly trick those Egyptian-Greeks have played and sets his army to furiously digging wells to find an alternative water source.
What I really found interesting was the curious absence of suicide. Reading Tacitus I got the impression that suicide was the epitome of Roman dignity and morality, that a citizen's worth was known by their ability to select the right moment to dispose of themselves efficiently. By contrast here only Cato kills himself after Thaspus. Every other commander seems happy, when circumstances require, to die in combat or to run away and fight again some other day - no matter how crushing the defeat. It seems that some change in cultural attitudes was taking place over this period. Just a few years later Brutus and Cassius will kill themselves on the field of battle rather than to run and hide as Pompey's sons do after complete defeat at Munda.
The first time I read this I had borrowed it from my local library. It was a Carnegie Library and most Saturday mornings I would trot off up progressively nicer roads, past cherry trees and past one house that had a monkey puzzle tree (quite probably the most incredible and alien living thing I saw in my youth) in their front garden, with a small green satchel over my shoulder. I was young, still in single figures, keen to regularly exchange my three library tickets for fresh reading and grabbed the volume of Caesar. I remember being so overwhelmed by the story of Scaeva and his shield that had been pierced 120 times as he fought to hold off an attack by Pompey's army that I had to draw a picture of the shield with all 120 holes in it. The paper probably showed more hole than shield by the time I had finished. One the same day Caesar's men collected 30,000 arrows that had been shot at their positions, I imagine them counting them out before their commander proud of their valour under fire: I, II, III, IV...CI, CII, CIII...MMMI, MMMII, MMMIII...enough counting to keep Sesame Street busy for many a year.
I'm sorry to disappoint romantics, but Cleopatra (the VIIth to distinguish her from the many other Cleopatras in the family) only gets mentioned once, briefly and very practically as she is left in charge with her younger brother after the death of Ptolemy XIII.
October 3, 2017
Men are nearly always willing to believe what they wish."
― Julius Caesar
Well-behaved Romans seldom Make History
War is hell obviously, but a civil war is a unique form of Hades (a Haidēs of many shaidēs?). The sides are more amorphous, permeable, ambiguous. There is a reluctance to kill a soldier that last year you considered a friend or a brother. While war often requires thinking beyond strategy and tactics, a civil war pushes those skills to the extreme. How do you limit the blood lust of your soldiers when they are confronting a group that might easily be conveyed into a future asset? How do you break an opponent's spirit without destroying the enemy or turning them into an enemy? How do you maintain a paid army's loyalty without pay? How do you keep your friends from deserting you after a devastating loss? Now, do all of this while still not alienating those fickle friends in Rome.
― Julius Caesar
Well-behaved Romans seldom Make History
War is hell obviously, but a civil war is a unique form of Hades (a Haidēs of many shaidēs?). The sides are more amorphous, permeable, ambiguous. There is a reluctance to kill a soldier that last year you considered a friend or a brother. While war often requires thinking beyond strategy and tactics, a civil war pushes those skills to the extreme. How do you limit the blood lust of your soldiers when they are confronting a group that might easily be conveyed into a future asset? How do you break an opponent's spirit without destroying the enemy or turning them into an enemy? How do you maintain a paid army's loyalty without pay? How do you keep your friends from deserting you after a devastating loss? Now, do all of this while still not alienating those fickle friends in Rome.
December 3, 2021
I am sure I would have enjoyed this book even more if only I brushed up on my Roman history. But I still enjoyed the attention to detail that Caesar practiced and his magnanimity towards those he defeated. Counting the times a shield was pierced by arrows as a sign of courage...it should be a term we use to this day: "Check my shield, count the arrows...I did my best at the meeting."
January 14, 2014
This book contains more than Caesar's writings on the Civil War; "The Alexandrian War", "The African War", "The Spanish War" are also included in this Penguin Classics edition - none of those pieces penned by him. I only read the first piece, the appendices, and the insightful intro written by Jane Gardner (also providing an excellent and easy to read translation).
I'm happy that I first read Caesar's Gallic Wars - getting a feeling for his writing style helped with this work, which I found a bit more dry. I came to both of these books by way of reading Vollmann's "Rising Up and Rising Down". I will admit my ignorance about JC other than the broadest of historical strokes; it was very interesting to me to learn how much skill Caesar had in so many traits (diplomat, general, orator, leader, politician, author). But what was most interesting, and unexpected, was the tremendous amount of leniency and clemency he showed to vanquished foes - especially fellow Roman citizens / soldiers during the Civil War. For JC, war was a means to an end - the sooner those ends could be achieved, with the least amount of bloodshed and cause for vengeance, the quicker the empire could assimilate the territory and its denizens into the Roman hegemony.
It was also helpful to have Wikipedia nearby to supplement the reading with detailed battle maps and expanded info on the partcipants in the narrative that JC mentions off-hand (there is a glossary of names at the end of the book, but it only offers the smallest amount of detail).
Having Caesar's two major works under my belt I am now ready to return to Vollmann's RUaRD in 2014.
I'm happy that I first read Caesar's Gallic Wars - getting a feeling for his writing style helped with this work, which I found a bit more dry. I came to both of these books by way of reading Vollmann's "Rising Up and Rising Down". I will admit my ignorance about JC other than the broadest of historical strokes; it was very interesting to me to learn how much skill Caesar had in so many traits (diplomat, general, orator, leader, politician, author). But what was most interesting, and unexpected, was the tremendous amount of leniency and clemency he showed to vanquished foes - especially fellow Roman citizens / soldiers during the Civil War. For JC, war was a means to an end - the sooner those ends could be achieved, with the least amount of bloodshed and cause for vengeance, the quicker the empire could assimilate the territory and its denizens into the Roman hegemony.
It was also helpful to have Wikipedia nearby to supplement the reading with detailed battle maps and expanded info on the partcipants in the narrative that JC mentions off-hand (there is a glossary of names at the end of the book, but it only offers the smallest amount of detail).
Having Caesar's two major works under my belt I am now ready to return to Vollmann's RUaRD in 2014.
August 26, 2016
This lone star is not for Caesar, it is for this wretched translation. After slogging through 70 or so pages feeling like my brain was coated in molasses, I decided to try a different translation. Right choice.
For example, here's how this volume translates a particular section:
"He leaves no point unmentioned that he thought adapted their minds to sanity."
What a clunker. Here's how the Penguin Classic (translated by Jane Gardner) has it:
"He added such further considerations as he thought might serve to bring them to their senses."
Much better. Even after restarting and 20 pages into this translation I feel like my mind has been squeegeed.
For example, here's how this volume translates a particular section:
"He leaves no point unmentioned that he thought adapted their minds to sanity."
What a clunker. Here's how the Penguin Classic (translated by Jane Gardner) has it:
"He added such further considerations as he thought might serve to bring them to their senses."
Much better. Even after restarting and 20 pages into this translation I feel like my mind has been squeegeed.
December 13, 2014
"Alea iacta est" ("the die is cast")
-Julius Caesar upon crossing the Rubicon,
(according to Suetonius)
Caesar continues his narrative from the Bello Gallico into another several books of commentaries on his civil war with Pompey the Great and the Roman Senate. Caesar does not dwell long on the causes of the civil war but rests that point upon saying that his rights and honor had been violated and his attempts to find a compromise (and he did attempt) were met with a declaration by the senate that he would be considered a traitor and force against him by Pompey (who was extra-legally made sole consul) authorized should he not comply. The commentaries follow in their usual style; gripping and vivid, clean and descriptive that highlight more of Caesar's brilliant tactics, his daring disposition to fortune ("fortune favors the bold" after all), and his great clemency to his fellow Romans including allowing an entire army in Hispania to return home after surrendering their arms and pardoning Pompeian senator and commander he captured, even pardoning the same obstinate patricians more than once (he pardoned Cassius, the future chief conspirator behind his assassination, three times). Ultimately, the Civil War ends with a delicious cliffhanger as one finds Caesar in Egypt after his climactic victory over Pompey in Greece, searching for his fugitive rival when he finds himself drawn into yet another war.
-Julius Caesar upon crossing the Rubicon,
(according to Suetonius)
Caesar continues his narrative from the Bello Gallico into another several books of commentaries on his civil war with Pompey the Great and the Roman Senate. Caesar does not dwell long on the causes of the civil war but rests that point upon saying that his rights and honor had been violated and his attempts to find a compromise (and he did attempt) were met with a declaration by the senate that he would be considered a traitor and force against him by Pompey (who was extra-legally made sole consul) authorized should he not comply. The commentaries follow in their usual style; gripping and vivid, clean and descriptive that highlight more of Caesar's brilliant tactics, his daring disposition to fortune ("fortune favors the bold" after all), and his great clemency to his fellow Romans including allowing an entire army in Hispania to return home after surrendering their arms and pardoning Pompeian senator and commander he captured, even pardoning the same obstinate patricians more than once (he pardoned Cassius, the future chief conspirator behind his assassination, three times). Ultimately, the Civil War ends with a delicious cliffhanger as one finds Caesar in Egypt after his climactic victory over Pompey in Greece, searching for his fugitive rival when he finds himself drawn into yet another war.
September 30, 2018
"Gneo Domicio, prefecto de la caballería, que rodeaba a Curión con unos pocos jinetes, le exhorta a que busque la salvación en la huida y se dirija al campamento, y le promete no apartarse de su lado. Pero Curión, asegurando que jamás volverá a presencia de César habiendo perdido el ejército que aquél había confiado a su lealtad, muere peleando."
Otro relato preciso, minucioso y a la vez trepidante de Julio César. Esta vez sobre la legendaria Guerra Civil que mantuvo contra Gneo Pompeyo, su antiguo amigo de guerra. César empieza con esta guerra a controlar de manera más avasalladora a toda Roma imponiendo con la fuerza de sus ejércitos más que con la propia justicia su derecho al poder entre sus contemporáneos.
Victorioso de la conquista de la región conocida como Galia, tras distintas órdenes de parte del Senado Romano que Julio César toma como ataques a su persona para impedir que sea elegido cónsul decide romper con la oficialidad romana y cruzar el Rubicón al mando de sus legiones aunque desposeído de varias de ellas. Por su parte Pompeyo que contaba con el apoyo legal decide retirarse con una buena parte del ejército rumbo a Asia considerando que gran parte del pueblo empieza a ponerse de parte de César y sus filas van disminuyendo por la deserción de los soldados.
Y así empieza esta real guerra civil en la cual César lucha en diferentes frentes, tanto en Roma (Italia), Hispania (España), Grecia, Asia y Egipto. Por su parte Pompeyo no se queda atrás en táctica aunque parece inferior a su oponente. El gran prestigio ganado por él durante las guerras contra los piratas y en Hispania hace que muchas de las colonias romanas lo apoyen. Y así César desde su punto de vista cuenta cómo la guerra para él es muy difícil de hacer y siempre carece de medios aunque obviamente hay una parcialidad de su parte. A pesar de eso se puede decir que el relato de César es bastante verídico y poco exagerado en general.
Las miserias de la guerra civil no están ausentes, muchos de los que apoyaron a César se pusieron del lado de su enemigo como Tito Lavieno, gran general que lo había ayudado durante la Guerra de las Galias en toda la campaña, pero que esta vez deseará su cabeza. Soldados abandonando a Pompeyo, ambos dando discursos para alentar a sus hombres, la escasez de recursos, las maquinarias construidas a pulso por los soldados de César con el fin de cercar a Pompeyo, los saqueos a las ciudades, los cupos y los impuestos, las traiciones de algunas facciones, la crueldad y clemencia en ambos bandos, todo es pintado con un realismo importante pero también con la visión del militar y estadista.
Qué mejor que esta guerra contada por el mismo César que nos permite descubrir y sentirnos como si estuviésemos en el mismo lugar de los hechos en una terrible contienda donde era necesario aniquilar todas las fuerzas del enemigo, donde los generales preferían suicidarse a tener que acabar en derrota, ambos bandos correr por sus vidas cuando eran presas del terror, en fin, todas las emociones humanas en esta épica guerra.
En verdad me gustó más "La Guerra de las Galias" pero aunque más corto e incompleto este escrito mantiene el estilo y la atracción por acabar las páginas de esta parte de la historia.
Otro relato preciso, minucioso y a la vez trepidante de Julio César. Esta vez sobre la legendaria Guerra Civil que mantuvo contra Gneo Pompeyo, su antiguo amigo de guerra. César empieza con esta guerra a controlar de manera más avasalladora a toda Roma imponiendo con la fuerza de sus ejércitos más que con la propia justicia su derecho al poder entre sus contemporáneos.
Victorioso de la conquista de la región conocida como Galia, tras distintas órdenes de parte del Senado Romano que Julio César toma como ataques a su persona para impedir que sea elegido cónsul decide romper con la oficialidad romana y cruzar el Rubicón al mando de sus legiones aunque desposeído de varias de ellas. Por su parte Pompeyo que contaba con el apoyo legal decide retirarse con una buena parte del ejército rumbo a Asia considerando que gran parte del pueblo empieza a ponerse de parte de César y sus filas van disminuyendo por la deserción de los soldados.
Y así empieza esta real guerra civil en la cual César lucha en diferentes frentes, tanto en Roma (Italia), Hispania (España), Grecia, Asia y Egipto. Por su parte Pompeyo no se queda atrás en táctica aunque parece inferior a su oponente. El gran prestigio ganado por él durante las guerras contra los piratas y en Hispania hace que muchas de las colonias romanas lo apoyen. Y así César desde su punto de vista cuenta cómo la guerra para él es muy difícil de hacer y siempre carece de medios aunque obviamente hay una parcialidad de su parte. A pesar de eso se puede decir que el relato de César es bastante verídico y poco exagerado en general.
Las miserias de la guerra civil no están ausentes, muchos de los que apoyaron a César se pusieron del lado de su enemigo como Tito Lavieno, gran general que lo había ayudado durante la Guerra de las Galias en toda la campaña, pero que esta vez deseará su cabeza. Soldados abandonando a Pompeyo, ambos dando discursos para alentar a sus hombres, la escasez de recursos, las maquinarias construidas a pulso por los soldados de César con el fin de cercar a Pompeyo, los saqueos a las ciudades, los cupos y los impuestos, las traiciones de algunas facciones, la crueldad y clemencia en ambos bandos, todo es pintado con un realismo importante pero también con la visión del militar y estadista.
Qué mejor que esta guerra contada por el mismo César que nos permite descubrir y sentirnos como si estuviésemos en el mismo lugar de los hechos en una terrible contienda donde era necesario aniquilar todas las fuerzas del enemigo, donde los generales preferían suicidarse a tener que acabar en derrota, ambos bandos correr por sus vidas cuando eran presas del terror, en fin, todas las emociones humanas en esta épica guerra.
En verdad me gustó más "La Guerra de las Galias" pero aunque más corto e incompleto este escrito mantiene el estilo y la atracción por acabar las páginas de esta parte de la historia.
Read
February 28, 2012I first read the 'Illustrated' Comic book series of this book and man when I was 11 or 12. In High School I chose Julius Caesar for my senior theme and although I am not a 'history buff' in general the man and his times have a strange affect on my reading habits. So much so that in the past 4-5 years I have collected 180 books, both Novel and biography regarding Caesar and the Roman Republic. Maureen Mccullough's 'fictional' Roman series was the clincher for me, so much so, that I also collect rare books about Caesar/Era including, 2 volumes by Napoleon Bonaparte.
Even Caesar's contemporaries (Giants themselves--Cicero, etc) thought his writing was the best that could be produced.
His Civil War commentaries are still taught in Latin classes but more importantly for the contemporary reader his writing is clear, seemingly unfettered by flourishes, etc., descriptive of the countries and people he was conquering, even his admiration for some Rome's enemies. It is also more than it appears. For while it reads as a war commentary by a general it is also, propaganda to build his 2 tiered voter base back in Rome: The senate and the 'common' people who voted him up the ladder from the lowest government position to sole Consul of Rome. Although from one of the 'blue blood' families' he was the champion of the common man.
He was self aware of what he was doing at all times and why and the Civil War foreshadows the greatness to come.
On another note this book reminds us 'that he who does not study history is doomed to repeat it' the parallel of His times and ours is chilling.
Even Caesar's contemporaries (Giants themselves--Cicero, etc) thought his writing was the best that could be produced.
His Civil War commentaries are still taught in Latin classes but more importantly for the contemporary reader his writing is clear, seemingly unfettered by flourishes, etc., descriptive of the countries and people he was conquering, even his admiration for some Rome's enemies. It is also more than it appears. For while it reads as a war commentary by a general it is also, propaganda to build his 2 tiered voter base back in Rome: The senate and the 'common' people who voted him up the ladder from the lowest government position to sole Consul of Rome. Although from one of the 'blue blood' families' he was the champion of the common man.
He was self aware of what he was doing at all times and why and the Civil War foreshadows the greatness to come.
On another note this book reminds us 'that he who does not study history is doomed to repeat it' the parallel of His times and ours is chilling.
February 12, 2020
Kitap, Cumhuriyet'in son döneminde yaşanan iç savaşa dair Sezar'ın kendi kaleminden yazdıklarından oluşuyor. Dönem olarak, iç savaşın tamamını değil ancak en kritik dönemi kapsayacak şekilde, Sezar'ın Galya'yı fethinden sonra, M.Ö. Ocak 49'da Rubicon'u geçerek Roma'ya yürümesi ile başlayıp, Pompeius Magnus'un M.Ö. Eylül 48'de İskenderiye'de öldürülmesi ile noktalanıyor.
Tabi Sezar yine Comentarii'nın ilk cildi olan "Notlar-Galya Savaşı Üzerine" adlı diğer eserinde olduğu gibi, bu eserini de daha çok kendi siyasi propagandası amacıyla kaleme alsa da, buradaki her satırda sürekli bir meşruiyet arayışı içinde olduğunu hissetmek mümkün çünkü bu sefer Galya'da olduğu gibi Keltlerin, Cermenlerin değil, kendi yurttaşlarının kanını dökeceğinin farkında. Bu nedenle, eserin bir tür savunma ve aklanma çabası olarak, Senato ve aristokratların Sezar’a başka çare bırakmaması üzerine, iç savaşı başlatmasınının meşruiyetini Romalı yurttaşlar nezdinde sağlamak amacıyla yazıldığını söylemek mümkün.
Sezar Cumhuriyet'teki yozlaşma ve çürümenin farkında ve bir siyasetçi olarak bu yozlaşmayı da kendi lehine kullanmaktan hiç bir zaman çekinmiyor. Tiber kenarında küçük bir köy olarak kurulan Roma'nın Batı'da Atlas Okyanusu'na, Kuzey'de Manş Denizi'ne kadar dayanan çağın en büyük örgütlü gücünün artık birkaç aile tarafından yönetilemeyecek kadar büyüdüğünü görüyor. Ancak kitapta savunduğu üzere, istemeden de olsa başlattığı iç savaşı bitirmeye kendi ömrü de yetmiyor.
İç savaşta, her iki taraf da (optimates ve populares) kozlarını karşı tarafı tartarak oynuyor ancak aristokrasi tarafı, Sezar'ı ve elini hafife alarak hata yapıyor, bir poker oyunu gibi, adım adım restleşmenin sonucunda Cumhuriyetin yıkımına kadar gidecek 30 yıllık bir süreç başlamış oluyor. Tabi bu süreci başlatanın tek başına Sezar olduğunu söylemek yanlış olur, konuyu Sulla'ya ve Marius reformlarına kadar götürmek mümkün. Yine de cumhuriyete son çivilerin çakıldığı süreç, tam olarak bu dönemde başlıyor.
Bu süreci özetlemek gerekirse:
Galya’nın fethinden sonra, ordusunu terhis etmeden, şehre girmeden konsül adayı olmasına izin verilmesini isteyen Sezar'a karşılık, Senato sivil bir vatandaş olarak Roma'ya gelmezse adaylığının kabul edilmeyeceğini bildiriyor. Tabi burada asıl niyet Sezar'ın "imperium" yetkisinden sıyrılmasını sağlayarak, yargılanmak istenmesi. Sezar, son 8 yılını, eyaletinde, şehirden uzakta geçirse de Roma siyasetini gün be gün takip edecek kadar duruma hakim ve Senato'nun asıl niyetinin farkında. Bu nedenle, ordularını terhis etmeyi reddederek, eğer ordular dağıtılacaksa, eski ortağı, dönemin İspanya valisi ve aristokrasinin şampiyonu olarak öne çıkartılan Pompeius'un da aynısını yapmasını teklif ediyor. Aristokrasinin bu isteğe şiddetle karşı çıkarak, Sezar'ı halk düşmanı ilan etmesi ise, Sezar'ın ordu ile geçilmesi kanunen yasaklanmış olan Rubicon ırmağını, 13. lejyonla ile birlikte geçerek İtalya’ya yürümesi ve böylece iç savaşı başlatmasına neden oluyor.
Bundan sonrasını merak edenler, kendilerine bir iyilik yaparak tüm dünya tarihini şekillendiren bu dönemi, başrol oyuncusunun kendi satırlarından okusunlar, konuya ilgisi olanlar zaten okumuştur, ben de merak eden okuyucuya tavsiye edeyim.
Son olarak, çeviriye ve kitabın edisyonuna değinmeden olmaz. Çevirmen Samet Özgüler, Comentarii'nın ilk cildinde olduğu gibi, yine bir editör gibi çalışmış, her türlü saygıya ve övgüye değer bir iş çıkarmış. Latince aslından ilk kez tercüme edilen bu eseri, güzel bir Türkçe ile dilimize kazandırmasının yanı sıra, yine ekler ve sayfalarca açıklayıcı dipnotlarla zenginleştirmiş. Sezar'ın rakiplerinin iş bilmezliğini ve kendi becerikliliğini vurgulamak amacıyla metnin bazı yerlerine serpiştirdiği kısacık göndermeleri ve nükteleri açıklayarak, konunun daha iyi anlaşılmasına yardımcı olmuş.
Kitaptaki eklerden ilki, MÖ 59-49 arası dönemde yaşanan patrici / pleb gerilimleri ile iç savaşın toplumsal alt yapısını ve sonrasını anlatan 60 sayfalık bir giriş bölümü, burada Sulla dönemine de değiniliyor ve Sezar'ın Rubicon'u geçmesinin neden önemli olduğu aktarılıyor. Kitabın sonunda ise, iç savaşta taraf olan, eserde adı geçen şahısların tek tek tanıtıldığı, Sezar'la olan ihtilaflarının veya işbirliklerinin nerede başladığı, nerede bittiği, savaştan sonraki akıbetlerinin tek tek anlatıldığı 30 sayfalık bir başka eke yer verilmiş. Tahmin edeceğiniz üzere, bu ekte ve dolayısıyla kitapta adı geçen şahısların bir çoğu, Yunanistan’da, Pharsalus'ta, İskenderiye'de, Afrika'da veya İspanya'da savaş esnasında sahneden çekiliyor veya Cassius, Brutus gibi Sezar'a boyun eğiyor ancak 4 yıl sonra suikastını organize ediyorlar. Son olarak iç savaşa giden taşları döşeyen Sulla tarafından diktatörlüğü süresince çıkartılan yasalar (Lex Cornelia) dahi, bir başka ek ile açıklanmış.
Tabi Sezar yine Comentarii'nın ilk cildi olan "Notlar-Galya Savaşı Üzerine" adlı diğer eserinde olduğu gibi, bu eserini de daha çok kendi siyasi propagandası amacıyla kaleme alsa da, buradaki her satırda sürekli bir meşruiyet arayışı içinde olduğunu hissetmek mümkün çünkü bu sefer Galya'da olduğu gibi Keltlerin, Cermenlerin değil, kendi yurttaşlarının kanını dökeceğinin farkında. Bu nedenle, eserin bir tür savunma ve aklanma çabası olarak, Senato ve aristokratların Sezar’a başka çare bırakmaması üzerine, iç savaşı başlatmasınının meşruiyetini Romalı yurttaşlar nezdinde sağlamak amacıyla yazıldığını söylemek mümkün.
Sezar Cumhuriyet'teki yozlaşma ve çürümenin farkında ve bir siyasetçi olarak bu yozlaşmayı da kendi lehine kullanmaktan hiç bir zaman çekinmiyor. Tiber kenarında küçük bir köy olarak kurulan Roma'nın Batı'da Atlas Okyanusu'na, Kuzey'de Manş Denizi'ne kadar dayanan çağın en büyük örgütlü gücünün artık birkaç aile tarafından yönetilemeyecek kadar büyüdüğünü görüyor. Ancak kitapta savunduğu üzere, istemeden de olsa başlattığı iç savaşı bitirmeye kendi ömrü de yetmiyor.
İç savaşta, her iki taraf da (optimates ve populares) kozlarını karşı tarafı tartarak oynuyor ancak aristokrasi tarafı, Sezar'ı ve elini hafife alarak hata yapıyor, bir poker oyunu gibi, adım adım restleşmenin sonucunda Cumhuriyetin yıkımına kadar gidecek 30 yıllık bir süreç başlamış oluyor. Tabi bu süreci başlatanın tek başına Sezar olduğunu söylemek yanlış olur, konuyu Sulla'ya ve Marius reformlarına kadar götürmek mümkün. Yine de cumhuriyete son çivilerin çakıldığı süreç, tam olarak bu dönemde başlıyor.
Bu süreci özetlemek gerekirse:
Galya’nın fethinden sonra, ordusunu terhis etmeden, şehre girmeden konsül adayı olmasına izin verilmesini isteyen Sezar'a karşılık, Senato sivil bir vatandaş olarak Roma'ya gelmezse adaylığının kabul edilmeyeceğini bildiriyor. Tabi burada asıl niyet Sezar'ın "imperium" yetkisinden sıyrılmasını sağlayarak, yargılanmak istenmesi. Sezar, son 8 yılını, eyaletinde, şehirden uzakta geçirse de Roma siyasetini gün be gün takip edecek kadar duruma hakim ve Senato'nun asıl niyetinin farkında. Bu nedenle, ordularını terhis etmeyi reddederek, eğer ordular dağıtılacaksa, eski ortağı, dönemin İspanya valisi ve aristokrasinin şampiyonu olarak öne çıkartılan Pompeius'un da aynısını yapmasını teklif ediyor. Aristokrasinin bu isteğe şiddetle karşı çıkarak, Sezar'ı halk düşmanı ilan etmesi ise, Sezar'ın ordu ile geçilmesi kanunen yasaklanmış olan Rubicon ırmağını, 13. lejyonla ile birlikte geçerek İtalya’ya yürümesi ve böylece iç savaşı başlatmasına neden oluyor.
Bundan sonrasını merak edenler, kendilerine bir iyilik yaparak tüm dünya tarihini şekillendiren bu dönemi, başrol oyuncusunun kendi satırlarından okusunlar, konuya ilgisi olanlar zaten okumuştur, ben de merak eden okuyucuya tavsiye edeyim.
Son olarak, çeviriye ve kitabın edisyonuna değinmeden olmaz. Çevirmen Samet Özgüler, Comentarii'nın ilk cildinde olduğu gibi, yine bir editör gibi çalışmış, her türlü saygıya ve övgüye değer bir iş çıkarmış. Latince aslından ilk kez tercüme edilen bu eseri, güzel bir Türkçe ile dilimize kazandırmasının yanı sıra, yine ekler ve sayfalarca açıklayıcı dipnotlarla zenginleştirmiş. Sezar'ın rakiplerinin iş bilmezliğini ve kendi becerikliliğini vurgulamak amacıyla metnin bazı yerlerine serpiştirdiği kısacık göndermeleri ve nükteleri açıklayarak, konunun daha iyi anlaşılmasına yardımcı olmuş.
Kitaptaki eklerden ilki, MÖ 59-49 arası dönemde yaşanan patrici / pleb gerilimleri ile iç savaşın toplumsal alt yapısını ve sonrasını anlatan 60 sayfalık bir giriş bölümü, burada Sulla dönemine de değiniliyor ve Sezar'ın Rubicon'u geçmesinin neden önemli olduğu aktarılıyor. Kitabın sonunda ise, iç savaşta taraf olan, eserde adı geçen şahısların tek tek tanıtıldığı, Sezar'la olan ihtilaflarının veya işbirliklerinin nerede başladığı, nerede bittiği, savaştan sonraki akıbetlerinin tek tek anlatıldığı 30 sayfalık bir başka eke yer verilmiş. Tahmin edeceğiniz üzere, bu ekte ve dolayısıyla kitapta adı geçen şahısların bir çoğu, Yunanistan’da, Pharsalus'ta, İskenderiye'de, Afrika'da veya İspanya'da savaş esnasında sahneden çekiliyor veya Cassius, Brutus gibi Sezar'a boyun eğiyor ancak 4 yıl sonra suikastını organize ediyorlar. Son olarak iç savaşa giden taşları döşeyen Sulla tarafından diktatörlüğü süresince çıkartılan yasalar (Lex Cornelia) dahi, bir başka ek ile açıklanmış.
April 21, 2015
An army marches on its stomach
Like innumerable warlords before him, Napoleon Bonaparte recognised that logistics were the lifeblood of any military campaign. Success or failure could hang by the thread of an adequate or inadequate level of supply. Imagine Agincourt if Henry's men had exhausted their supply of arrows. Consider Rourke's drift if the redcoats had frittered away their ammunition supply.
Essential though they are to the conduct of war, they are also as dry as the proverbial bone.
In the hands of a genius, such descriptions take on a life of their own.
Caesar's skill in warfare, oratory and diplomacy, is well known. That he could write such vivid accounts of military campaigns and the logistical efforts behind them, is surely another string to his bow.
We read of troop movements, corn supplies, the construction of siege engines, the levy of troops, and occasionally, a pitched battle between Caesar's forces against those of his great rival, Pompey.
We gain insights into the machinations of Roman politics, and we see the genius of Caesar in recruiting men to his cause, the charisma and oratory skill in persuading men to fight to further his ambitions. Generous to his supporters, firm, but fair to his defeated enemies, Caesar embodied Clausewitz's maxim that a benevolent conquer only has to conquer a populace once.
For a two thousand year old account, written in the third person, to be as engaging and engrossing as any major work of history, and to be more entertaining than most works of historical analysis written in the modern era, is testament to Caesar's genius.
Like innumerable warlords before him, Napoleon Bonaparte recognised that logistics were the lifeblood of any military campaign. Success or failure could hang by the thread of an adequate or inadequate level of supply. Imagine Agincourt if Henry's men had exhausted their supply of arrows. Consider Rourke's drift if the redcoats had frittered away their ammunition supply.
Essential though they are to the conduct of war, they are also as dry as the proverbial bone.
In the hands of a genius, such descriptions take on a life of their own.
Caesar's skill in warfare, oratory and diplomacy, is well known. That he could write such vivid accounts of military campaigns and the logistical efforts behind them, is surely another string to his bow.
We read of troop movements, corn supplies, the construction of siege engines, the levy of troops, and occasionally, a pitched battle between Caesar's forces against those of his great rival, Pompey.
We gain insights into the machinations of Roman politics, and we see the genius of Caesar in recruiting men to his cause, the charisma and oratory skill in persuading men to fight to further his ambitions. Generous to his supporters, firm, but fair to his defeated enemies, Caesar embodied Clausewitz's maxim that a benevolent conquer only has to conquer a populace once.
For a two thousand year old account, written in the third person, to be as engaging and engrossing as any major work of history, and to be more entertaining than most works of historical analysis written in the modern era, is testament to Caesar's genius.
April 19, 2015
-El zorro relatando el cuidado y la vigilancia del gallinero.-
Género. Biografía (en cierto modo, aunque es algo más).
Lo que nos cuenta. Descripción, de la mano del propio protagonista, de los eventos políticos que suponen finalmente el estallido de la Segunda Guerra Civil en la Antigua Roma y que nos narra lo sucedido hasta la llegada de César, con sus tropas, a la ciudad de Alejandría.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Biografía (en cierto modo, aunque es algo más).
Lo que nos cuenta. Descripción, de la mano del propio protagonista, de los eventos políticos que suponen finalmente el estallido de la Segunda Guerra Civil en la Antigua Roma y que nos narra lo sucedido hasta la llegada de César, con sus tropas, a la ciudad de Alejandría.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
February 7, 2017
nam quae volumus ea credimus libenter et quae sentimus ipsi reliquos sentire speramus
perché crediamo volentieri ciò che speriamo e speriamo che gli altri provino ciò che noi stessi proviamo
La guerra civile
Cesare
Abbandonato il progetto di leggere l'opera in traduzione fatta de me medesima (purtroppo il mio latino è molto più che arrugginito... sob!) mi sono “rassegnata” a leggerla nella bella versione offertami dall'edizione Bur Classici Greci e Latini, a cura di Massimo Bruno.
Suppongo che tradurre Cesare si aggiungerà alla lunga lista di cose lasciate a metà, che userò, quando dovrò contrattare, con la Fatale Signora, qualche anno in più a mio favore (mi immagino già la scena... qualcosa tipo: “Abbia ancora qualche lustro di pazienza, Signora... Sa, devo finire di tradurre i Commentari!”... XD ).
Surreali digressioni a parte, veniamo a Cesare.
Non so esattamente cosa scrivere di questo volume, mi sembra tutto superfluo: credo che meriti di essere letto. La trovo un'opera interessante da un punto di vista storico, da un punto di vista di tattica militare, e, soprattutto, per il testo di per se stesso: contiene dei passaggi che per me sono sorprendentemente efficaci e immediati. Insomma, parole inutili, appunto, per un libro che semplicemente ho amato molto.
perché crediamo volentieri ciò che speriamo e speriamo che gli altri provino ciò che noi stessi proviamo
La guerra civile
Cesare
Abbandonato il progetto di leggere l'opera in traduzione fatta de me medesima (purtroppo il mio latino è molto più che arrugginito... sob!) mi sono “rassegnata” a leggerla nella bella versione offertami dall'edizione Bur Classici Greci e Latini, a cura di Massimo Bruno.
Suppongo che tradurre Cesare si aggiungerà alla lunga lista di cose lasciate a metà, che userò, quando dovrò contrattare, con la Fatale Signora, qualche anno in più a mio favore (mi immagino già la scena... qualcosa tipo: “Abbia ancora qualche lustro di pazienza, Signora... Sa, devo finire di tradurre i Commentari!”... XD ).
Surreali digressioni a parte, veniamo a Cesare.
Non so esattamente cosa scrivere di questo volume, mi sembra tutto superfluo: credo che meriti di essere letto. La trovo un'opera interessante da un punto di vista storico, da un punto di vista di tattica militare, e, soprattutto, per il testo di per se stesso: contiene dei passaggi che per me sono sorprendentemente efficaci e immediati. Insomma, parole inutili, appunto, per un libro che semplicemente ho amato molto.
February 23, 2014
See my review of The Gallic Wars. This wasn’t quite as interesting as the Gallic Wars, but still worth while. Here, intrigue and alliances on Pompey’s side mirror the shifting alliances of the tribes in Gaul to some extent, but the sadness of Roman troops ordered to fight each other hangs over everything.
September 17, 2018
Caesar did nothing wrong.
For all the whining Cicero, Scipio and Pompey did about "preserving the republic" they didn't really care when they were breaking the constitution and ancient rules of the Republic - such as silencing the Tribune's veto, something which even the tyrant Sulla didn't do.
For all the whining Cicero, Scipio and Pompey did about "preserving the republic" they didn't really care when they were breaking the constitution and ancient rules of the Republic - such as silencing the Tribune's veto, something which even the tyrant Sulla didn't do.
December 5, 2011
The author was certainly very good at self-promotion. This was written to woo the public at home. Don't expect Caesar to talk up any of his gaffs. Still, a good read. Poor Gauls.
January 25, 2015
The Civil War - written by Gaius Julius Caesar and three of his followers - recounts the events of the civil war between the Caesar and Pompey the Great, including the latter's defeat and the subsequent "mopping-up" of his partisans in Egypt, Pontus, North Africa and Spain.
The book itself is not particularly interesting from a narrative perspective, as it mostly concerns itself with the various military campaigns conducted by Caesar during the war. It should also be noted that this text was written for a contempary readership: it does not concern itself with posterity and, as such, does not bother to explain much of the context that surrounds these events. It assumes its readers are well aware of the existing state of affairs in Italy and around the Mediterranean as the Roman Republic wilts and dies. In effect, this book is more of a "current affairs" text - albeit a two-thousand year old one - than a history book, and it should be read as such.
Its main interest to today's readers lies in its historical value. This is a book written by Romans for Romans, and therefore gives a sense of the realities of the time.
The book is split into four parts. The first is the longest, and is written by the great man himself. Although we have to rely on the skill of the translator to convey the spirit of his writing (I read Jane F Mitchell's version, which does this very well), Caesar's style is deliberately clean and efficient, without being dull. This serves the author's propaganda purposes, in that he comes across as a straight talker (unlike many of the ruling elite who prided themselves in their oratory) and a simple man. It is a tactic used by populist politicians throughout history. However, one can detect the character of the man himself, especially in the way he takes particular pride in describing the feats of engineering conducted not only by his men but by his foes as well. Here is an individual who has a lot of admiration for his fellow man, a sentiment which is corroborated by the near-absence of any reference to the gods. The only mention of religion comes in the shape of sacrifices, which suggest Caesar's faith was skin-deep, a tool to be used in his dealings with other men. The author is also at pains to emphasise his generosity and his leniency towards supplicants and defeated enemies, including "lesser" people such as barbarians and slaves. In the Ancient World - where massacring the population of a foreign town was seen as a crowd-pleaser - this attitude points towards a measured man, with a deep-seated fondness for mankind as a rule.
The first part is divided into three chapters, whose highlights are the siege of Massilia (where Roman military engineering is shown at its very finest), the encirclement of Pompey at Dyrrachium and the final battle of Pharsalus. Caesar's text ends abruptly in Egypt, where he is surrounded in Alexandria by the Egyptian army and the hostile local population, angered by the interference of Rome in their politics.
The second part - likely to have been penned by Hirtius, a lieutenant of Caesar evidently privy to many of his counsels - is written in a similar style, although it can lapse into ponderousness and mentions the "immortal gods" a few times. The claustrophobic battle for Alexandria, with its street fighting and the operations in the harbour at the foot of the great Lighthouse itself, are vivid and enthralling. The author seems less reluctant to mention Roman defeats than his commander is. The Alexandrian War, as this section is known, ends with the defeat of the foreign king Pharnaces in Pontus, to the north of modern-day Turkey. This passage allows a short aside to describe the area itself, something which is not seen much in Caesar's section, as Spain, southern Gaul and Greece would have been far more familiar to Italian readers.
We do not know who wrote the third part, named the African War, although its unbridled partisanship and repetitive, forced style suggests youth. The author clearly does not have the privilege of knowing Caesar personally, as he repeatedly adds "I suppose" when explaining Caesar's strategies. The writing can be rather poor at times, but for me this is compensated by the fresh, eye-witness based approach of the account. Caesar appears in person to make a speech or ride down the battle-line, and it is clear that the author has seen this himself. It also gives us a window into the thoughts of an educated young man doing his military service: the hero-worship of the general who can do no wrong, the fascination with the Numidian (i.e. North African) horsemen who rode bareback without bridles, the awe at the grizzled veterans of the Gallic campaign, and of course, the wonder of Scipio's war elephants. The enemy is protrayed as a dastardly villain, King Juba of Numidia is a cruel and arrogant foreign despot, the allies are noble, proud peoples (especially the Gallic cavalry), and we find repeated descriptions of the harsheness of the terrain, probably in contrast with Italy's fertile plains.
The final part, dubbed the Spanish War, is a mess. It was obviously written by a common soldier (Macaulay suggested "some sturdy old centurion"), which lends an immediacy to the action and shows the real nastiness of war, unlike the previous sections that often take a step back from the horror and reduce battles down to a list of numbers, a grim substraction that does not adequately portray the reality. Here, we see casual barbarism meted out to the enemy despite the latter having surrended, although Caesar does appear at times to try and stop the slaughter. The writing is very bad: sentences are either too long or a mish-mash of subordinate clauses. The author forgets a crucial detail and then has to throw it in at the last minute to make sense of his narrative. There is no perspective: armies are of an indeterminate size, events repeat themselves, and in one paragraph, we are treated to a long list of enemy defections interspersed with cavalry skirmishes. The author knows hardly anything about his commander, so his text seems more preocupied with his comrades-in-arms. Like veterans throughout the ages, he is fiercely loyal to his fellow legionnaries, and the enemy is both dangerous and weak at the same time.
I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the period, specifically for the insight it brings into how Ancient Romans saw their surroundings, the events of the time, and the moors of this alien yet oddly familiar world. The casual acceptance of the brutal execution of prisoners will shock the modern reader, and this makes Caesar's leniency all the more commendable. However, the mentions of legal proceedings and the politics back in Rome echo the daily news feed of our time, as does the name-dropping of long-forgotten celebrities. This book reminds us that two-thousand years ago, people were not so different to today and it gives history's characters a humanity that is often lost between the pages of a history book.
The book itself is not particularly interesting from a narrative perspective, as it mostly concerns itself with the various military campaigns conducted by Caesar during the war. It should also be noted that this text was written for a contempary readership: it does not concern itself with posterity and, as such, does not bother to explain much of the context that surrounds these events. It assumes its readers are well aware of the existing state of affairs in Italy and around the Mediterranean as the Roman Republic wilts and dies. In effect, this book is more of a "current affairs" text - albeit a two-thousand year old one - than a history book, and it should be read as such.
Its main interest to today's readers lies in its historical value. This is a book written by Romans for Romans, and therefore gives a sense of the realities of the time.
The book is split into four parts. The first is the longest, and is written by the great man himself. Although we have to rely on the skill of the translator to convey the spirit of his writing (I read Jane F Mitchell's version, which does this very well), Caesar's style is deliberately clean and efficient, without being dull. This serves the author's propaganda purposes, in that he comes across as a straight talker (unlike many of the ruling elite who prided themselves in their oratory) and a simple man. It is a tactic used by populist politicians throughout history. However, one can detect the character of the man himself, especially in the way he takes particular pride in describing the feats of engineering conducted not only by his men but by his foes as well. Here is an individual who has a lot of admiration for his fellow man, a sentiment which is corroborated by the near-absence of any reference to the gods. The only mention of religion comes in the shape of sacrifices, which suggest Caesar's faith was skin-deep, a tool to be used in his dealings with other men. The author is also at pains to emphasise his generosity and his leniency towards supplicants and defeated enemies, including "lesser" people such as barbarians and slaves. In the Ancient World - where massacring the population of a foreign town was seen as a crowd-pleaser - this attitude points towards a measured man, with a deep-seated fondness for mankind as a rule.
The first part is divided into three chapters, whose highlights are the siege of Massilia (where Roman military engineering is shown at its very finest), the encirclement of Pompey at Dyrrachium and the final battle of Pharsalus. Caesar's text ends abruptly in Egypt, where he is surrounded in Alexandria by the Egyptian army and the hostile local population, angered by the interference of Rome in their politics.
The second part - likely to have been penned by Hirtius, a lieutenant of Caesar evidently privy to many of his counsels - is written in a similar style, although it can lapse into ponderousness and mentions the "immortal gods" a few times. The claustrophobic battle for Alexandria, with its street fighting and the operations in the harbour at the foot of the great Lighthouse itself, are vivid and enthralling. The author seems less reluctant to mention Roman defeats than his commander is. The Alexandrian War, as this section is known, ends with the defeat of the foreign king Pharnaces in Pontus, to the north of modern-day Turkey. This passage allows a short aside to describe the area itself, something which is not seen much in Caesar's section, as Spain, southern Gaul and Greece would have been far more familiar to Italian readers.
We do not know who wrote the third part, named the African War, although its unbridled partisanship and repetitive, forced style suggests youth. The author clearly does not have the privilege of knowing Caesar personally, as he repeatedly adds "I suppose" when explaining Caesar's strategies. The writing can be rather poor at times, but for me this is compensated by the fresh, eye-witness based approach of the account. Caesar appears in person to make a speech or ride down the battle-line, and it is clear that the author has seen this himself. It also gives us a window into the thoughts of an educated young man doing his military service: the hero-worship of the general who can do no wrong, the fascination with the Numidian (i.e. North African) horsemen who rode bareback without bridles, the awe at the grizzled veterans of the Gallic campaign, and of course, the wonder of Scipio's war elephants. The enemy is protrayed as a dastardly villain, King Juba of Numidia is a cruel and arrogant foreign despot, the allies are noble, proud peoples (especially the Gallic cavalry), and we find repeated descriptions of the harsheness of the terrain, probably in contrast with Italy's fertile plains.
The final part, dubbed the Spanish War, is a mess. It was obviously written by a common soldier (Macaulay suggested "some sturdy old centurion"), which lends an immediacy to the action and shows the real nastiness of war, unlike the previous sections that often take a step back from the horror and reduce battles down to a list of numbers, a grim substraction that does not adequately portray the reality. Here, we see casual barbarism meted out to the enemy despite the latter having surrended, although Caesar does appear at times to try and stop the slaughter. The writing is very bad: sentences are either too long or a mish-mash of subordinate clauses. The author forgets a crucial detail and then has to throw it in at the last minute to make sense of his narrative. There is no perspective: armies are of an indeterminate size, events repeat themselves, and in one paragraph, we are treated to a long list of enemy defections interspersed with cavalry skirmishes. The author knows hardly anything about his commander, so his text seems more preocupied with his comrades-in-arms. Like veterans throughout the ages, he is fiercely loyal to his fellow legionnaries, and the enemy is both dangerous and weak at the same time.
I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the period, specifically for the insight it brings into how Ancient Romans saw their surroundings, the events of the time, and the moors of this alien yet oddly familiar world. The casual acceptance of the brutal execution of prisoners will shock the modern reader, and this makes Caesar's leniency all the more commendable. However, the mentions of legal proceedings and the politics back in Rome echo the daily news feed of our time, as does the name-dropping of long-forgotten celebrities. This book reminds us that two-thousand years ago, people were not so different to today and it gives history's characters a humanity that is often lost between the pages of a history book.
December 17, 2021
Of all wars civil war is the worst
Six months after the events described in this book, Julius Caesar was assassinated.
Some who slew him had been trusted allies and friends.
Literally stabbed in the back, in typical murderous Roman fashion, of many falling upon the one, and the one often unarmed, Caesar’s killing is the civil war in miniature.
Such a litany of betrayals, deceptions, ruses, murders and massacres you never find except when a nation is divided and pitted against itself.
His Conquest of Gaul is, by comparison, milder reading. And interesting because the tribes and countries of ancient Europe are discussed and examined. It’s not just fighting and intrigue.
But The Civil War is primarily fighting and betrayal and blood and intrigue. It’s more of a war story, and how the troops fight, how they are led, supplied and maneuvered. All this is interesting enough, given we are being swept back into an ancient world, but you have to be prepared for battle after battle after battle and discussion of the strategies and tactics employed.
I feel sorry for Caesar and his fate.
But that was heartless Rome. As you will see if you read this book. It strips the gleam off the Roman shields and armor.
Six months after the events described in this book, Julius Caesar was assassinated.
Some who slew him had been trusted allies and friends.
Literally stabbed in the back, in typical murderous Roman fashion, of many falling upon the one, and the one often unarmed, Caesar’s killing is the civil war in miniature.
Such a litany of betrayals, deceptions, ruses, murders and massacres you never find except when a nation is divided and pitted against itself.
His Conquest of Gaul is, by comparison, milder reading. And interesting because the tribes and countries of ancient Europe are discussed and examined. It’s not just fighting and intrigue.
But The Civil War is primarily fighting and betrayal and blood and intrigue. It’s more of a war story, and how the troops fight, how they are led, supplied and maneuvered. All this is interesting enough, given we are being swept back into an ancient world, but you have to be prepared for battle after battle after battle and discussion of the strategies and tactics employed.
I feel sorry for Caesar and his fate.
But that was heartless Rome. As you will see if you read this book. It strips the gleam off the Roman shields and armor.
September 8, 2022
Que la historia la escriben los vencedores en este caso es literal. César se ciñe a los hechos pero los estructura de tal manera que solo puedes ponerte de su parte. Más allá de mera propaganda, este libro es sobre todo un relato bélico tan sucinto como emocionante, lleno de detalles de estrategia e ingeniería que aportan verosimilitud a lo narrado.
September 25, 2016
Caesar was a genius on every level, including writing his own propaganda. The only problem for the reader is that his dry, deliberately dispassionate style makes for a tough read - and that's in English, without trying to grapple with the Latin!
July 14, 2024
Not really sure it's fair that Caesar was a great history writer who remembers every detail of every battle he's ever been in on top of all the other crucial stuff he was really, really good at. Surely save some for the rest of us, bro.
February 16, 2008
More propaganda from the man who did it all. It's a bit annoying to think that Caesar could write as well as this, on top of his many other talents. Essential reading.
December 12, 2009
Caesar becomes master of the known world. Then dies.
October 17, 2019
magnanimous caesar liberates rome from evil romans.
September 11, 2020
I’ve read this short work (130 pages in paperback) a few times, but it has never left a deep impression on me. That is probably due to the one-sidedness of the story, a result of history as written by the victor. For a different reason, it is sometimes hard to sort out the many names and places Caesar drops into his narrative—he can’t be accused of not being detailed in his account. Fortunately, the Penguin Classics edition I own has a Glossary of Persons and Places in the back to make it easier to keep score of the players, and maps of ancient Italy and the Mediterranean to keep track of the playing field.
Because The Civil War opens without any background information—Caesar just jumps into his narrative—I will attempt to put the story in context via a thumbnail sketch. In 60 B.C., following a series of military victories and leadership appointments that left them thirsty for more political power, Caesar formed what became known as the First Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus. In one regard, this helped them provide an alliance against their mutual enemies in the Senate but more importantly it was a check-and-balance safeguard preventing any one of them from gaining too much control within the Roman Empire. As if to further cement the bond between them, Pompey married Caesar’s daughter the following year.
Crassus’ death in 53 B.C. left Caesar and Pompey as the two most powerful men in the Empire, with supporters and opponents lining up behind each one in the Senate. Part of this reason is because each one had multiple armies, consisting of archers, cavalry, and infantry. However, while Pompey remained just outside Rome (by law, he could not enter Rome without disbanding his army), Caesar was conquering territories in modern-day France, Spain, and Northern Europe. Pompey therefore had something of the upper hand, being in a better position to influence the decision-makers in Rome. Furthermore, he had recently become a widower, which severed his familial ties with Caesar.
In the few years that followed, the Senate leaned toward Pompey and gave him more authority. As a result, Caesar’s enemies in the Senate grew in number. When a motion was raised of stripping Caesar of his conquered territories because he could not appear in person for re-election to the consul, he first proposed that he be allowed to appear in absentia. When that was rejected, he offered a compromise; he would disband his troops and return to Rome if Pompey would do the same. Pompey, for his part, was willing to do so, but the Senate again rejected Caesar’s offer, possibly out of mistrust, possibly out of fear of Caesar’s growing popularity among the people. It is at this point where The Civil War begins.
Though Caesar wrote about his army using the first person plural, he referred to himself in the third person throughout these memoirs. I don’t know the reason why--perhaps it was the style of the time or he wished these war accounts to be an anonymous piece of propaganda to win over the populace. In any case, the writings reveal much of the planning and strategy of Caesar’s army as well as such engineering descriptions like the construction of ramparts and siege walls. Caesar also grasped the economic hardships that wartime brings, like the rise in the price of corn and the scarcity of other commodities.
It isn’t surprising that in The Civil War Caesar comes off as a benevolent leader. He mentions how generous he is with his soldiers, giving them money from his own pocket after successful campaigns. He was quick to reward loyalty, especially where civilians were concerned, by refusing to impose on towns that welcomed him. He listened to the opinions of his officers rather than making all the decisions himself.
He quoted himself as to the reason why he reluctantly went to war against Pompey, saying “I did not leave my province with intent to harm anybody. I merely want to protect myself against the slanders of my enemies…and to reclaim for myself and for the Roman people independence from the dominion of a small clique.” (The Civil War Part I Ch. 22)
With his veteran, well-trained army, Caesar was able to
I found parts of The Civil War hard to swallow and believed that Caesar was embellishing his legend, but a cross reference of the historian Plutarch’s Life of Caesar bears up to much of what Caesar wrote. Certainly, Plutarch’s source may very well have been Caesar’s manuscript, but Plutarch did not seem to doubt the accounts.
Setting aside the veracity of Caesar’s report, the pace of the book doesn’t flow in a way I had expected. As I mentioned at the top of this review, names long forgotten to history pop up throughout the work, making it hard to keep track of who is on whose side. Though the story is told chronologically, Caesar skips around from scene to scene to describe what was reported to him on the various fronts. The answer seems to be: not much.
The Civil War usually has three appendages to it--The Alexandrian War, The African War, and The Spanish War. These last three document Caesar’s final battles with troops loyal to Pompey, and include in passing his placement of Cleopatra as Queen of Egypt. However, it is widely regarded that they were written by one or more of his officers. The accounts lack the insight of The Civil War and do not appear as well written. In addition, some of the text to The Spanish War has been lost, making for some jagged reading in parts.
I recommend The Civil War as it remains one of the few works written by Julius Caesar. But don’t expect it to be an action-packed narrative. It reads less as a story and more as the military journal of one of the greatest generals the world has seen.
Because The Civil War opens without any background information—Caesar just jumps into his narrative—I will attempt to put the story in context via a thumbnail sketch. In 60 B.C., following a series of military victories and leadership appointments that left them thirsty for more political power, Caesar formed what became known as the First Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus. In one regard, this helped them provide an alliance against their mutual enemies in the Senate but more importantly it was a check-and-balance safeguard preventing any one of them from gaining too much control within the Roman Empire. As if to further cement the bond between them, Pompey married Caesar’s daughter the following year.
Crassus’ death in 53 B.C. left Caesar and Pompey as the two most powerful men in the Empire, with supporters and opponents lining up behind each one in the Senate. Part of this reason is because each one had multiple armies, consisting of archers, cavalry, and infantry. However, while Pompey remained just outside Rome (by law, he could not enter Rome without disbanding his army), Caesar was conquering territories in modern-day France, Spain, and Northern Europe. Pompey therefore had something of the upper hand, being in a better position to influence the decision-makers in Rome. Furthermore, he had recently become a widower, which severed his familial ties with Caesar.
In the few years that followed, the Senate leaned toward Pompey and gave him more authority. As a result, Caesar’s enemies in the Senate grew in number. When a motion was raised of stripping Caesar of his conquered territories because he could not appear in person for re-election to the consul, he first proposed that he be allowed to appear in absentia. When that was rejected, he offered a compromise; he would disband his troops and return to Rome if Pompey would do the same. Pompey, for his part, was willing to do so, but the Senate again rejected Caesar’s offer, possibly out of mistrust, possibly out of fear of Caesar’s growing popularity among the people. It is at this point where The Civil War begins.
Though Caesar wrote about his army using the first person plural, he referred to himself in the third person throughout these memoirs. I don’t know the reason why--perhaps it was the style of the time or he wished these war accounts to be an anonymous piece of propaganda to win over the populace. In any case, the writings reveal much of the planning and strategy of Caesar’s army as well as such engineering descriptions like the construction of ramparts and siege walls. Caesar also grasped the economic hardships that wartime brings, like the rise in the price of corn and the scarcity of other commodities.
It isn’t surprising that in The Civil War Caesar comes off as a benevolent leader. He mentions how generous he is with his soldiers, giving them money from his own pocket after successful campaigns. He was quick to reward loyalty, especially where civilians were concerned, by refusing to impose on towns that welcomed him. He listened to the opinions of his officers rather than making all the decisions himself.
He quoted himself as to the reason why he reluctantly went to war against Pompey, saying “I did not leave my province with intent to harm anybody. I merely want to protect myself against the slanders of my enemies…and to reclaim for myself and for the Roman people independence from the dominion of a small clique.” (The Civil War Part I Ch. 22)
With his veteran, well-trained army, Caesar was able to
I found parts of The Civil War hard to swallow and believed that Caesar was embellishing his legend, but a cross reference of the historian Plutarch’s Life of Caesar bears up to much of what Caesar wrote. Certainly, Plutarch’s source may very well have been Caesar’s manuscript, but Plutarch did not seem to doubt the accounts.
Setting aside the veracity of Caesar’s report, the pace of the book doesn’t flow in a way I had expected. As I mentioned at the top of this review, names long forgotten to history pop up throughout the work, making it hard to keep track of who is on whose side. Though the story is told chronologically, Caesar skips around from scene to scene to describe what was reported to him on the various fronts. The answer seems to be: not much.
The Civil War usually has three appendages to it--The Alexandrian War, The African War, and The Spanish War. These last three document Caesar’s final battles with troops loyal to Pompey, and include in passing his placement of Cleopatra as Queen of Egypt. However, it is widely regarded that they were written by one or more of his officers. The accounts lack the insight of The Civil War and do not appear as well written. In addition, some of the text to The Spanish War has been lost, making for some jagged reading in parts.
I recommend The Civil War as it remains one of the few works written by Julius Caesar. But don’t expect it to be an action-packed narrative. It reads less as a story and more as the military journal of one of the greatest generals the world has seen.
September 26, 2021
I enjoyed this book.
I found it quite an interesting read.
I have suddenly gotten into some classic books, and this was a good read in that genre set!
3.9/5
I found it quite an interesting read.
I have suddenly gotten into some classic books, and this was a good read in that genre set!
3.9/5
December 21, 2021
Set sail Caesar, I pray we never met again!
July 31, 2024
Find a better translation than the Barnes and Noble Library of Essential Reading's one. Either the Penguin classics translation or the one found in the Landmark edition are likely more worth your time.e
October 16, 2011
History is written by the winners. In this case it is truer then most, however, I do not believe one should naturally discount it for that reason, but it does need to be mentioned. With that said, this second famous work by Julius Caesar is a remarkable read. It is great political document where Caesar not only reports on the events that happened but also presents his case to why his cause should prevail. The war was caused by a political situation that had boiling for years and was now going to boil over the cause of Caesar and the populares and the optimates now being championed by Caesar's former friend and ally, Gnaeus Pompeius, also known as Pompey the Great.
Caesar had just wrapped up his campaign in Gaul, and was fast becoming the most popular man in Rome. Caesar wanted to be the consul again but his enemies would not have it. The optimates demanded that Caesar resign his pro-consulship of Gaul and retire. Caesar agreed to resign his command and disband his army only if the Pompey agreed to do the same. The Senate refused, supported Pompey's time as sole consul, and approved his pro-consulship of the Spanish provinces. Caesar feeling boxed in crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome proclaiming `the die is cast.'
"However for the sake of Rome I bore this loss of privilege with a good grace. When I wrote to the Senate suggesting a general demobilization, I was not allowed even that. Troops are being raised all over Italy, my two legions, which were taken from me on the pretext of a Parthian campaign, are being retained, and the whole State is in arms. What is the aim of all these preparations but my destruction?" p.40
Ancient warfare was extremely brutal and by modern day standards would be consider criminal. In this respect Caesar was no different than any other, in fact, considering his success as general, who could argued to be the most brutal. Decided to try something different, he offered clemency to those who had fought against him and took no action to those who had chosen to remain neutral. This helped him win over the population that he was now going to rule.
"Their departure left the soldiers free to fraternize. There was a general exodus from the Pompeian camp; the men began asking after personal friends and fellow-townsmen in Caesar's camp, and called them out. Firstly, they all expressed their thanks to all of our men for having spared them the day before, when they were utterly terror-stricken. `We owe our lives to you,' they said. They then asked weather Caesar could be trusted, and whether they would be right to put themselves in his hands; they expressed regret for not having done so in the first place and having joined battle with their own friends and kinsmen." p.72
Like his book on the Gallic War, Caesar likes to quote dialogues that there was no way he could have been privy to. Granted, later defectors could have given him such information but it is still very unlikely that he could have known what they would have said word for word. It is also interesting the Caesar, of course, keeps out the famous Egyptian queen, Cleopatra. It is said that he did not later chapters such as the Alexandrian War and the African War, but I could not see any differences when I was reading them.
"If at any time Pompey acted with particular slowness or deliberation, they would say that the business need keep them only a single day, and that Pompey took pleasure from being in command and was treating ex-consuls and ex-praetors as if they were his slaves. They were already starting to squabble openly among themselves about rewards and priesthoods and were assigning the consul ships for years to come, while some were claiming houses and property of those in Caesar's camp." p.148
I highly enjoyed this book and I recommend it to anyone interested in the time period, I would also recommend Adrian Goldsworthy small work Caesar's Civil War as a reference guide while reading.
Caesar had just wrapped up his campaign in Gaul, and was fast becoming the most popular man in Rome. Caesar wanted to be the consul again but his enemies would not have it. The optimates demanded that Caesar resign his pro-consulship of Gaul and retire. Caesar agreed to resign his command and disband his army only if the Pompey agreed to do the same. The Senate refused, supported Pompey's time as sole consul, and approved his pro-consulship of the Spanish provinces. Caesar feeling boxed in crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome proclaiming `the die is cast.'
"However for the sake of Rome I bore this loss of privilege with a good grace. When I wrote to the Senate suggesting a general demobilization, I was not allowed even that. Troops are being raised all over Italy, my two legions, which were taken from me on the pretext of a Parthian campaign, are being retained, and the whole State is in arms. What is the aim of all these preparations but my destruction?" p.40
Ancient warfare was extremely brutal and by modern day standards would be consider criminal. In this respect Caesar was no different than any other, in fact, considering his success as general, who could argued to be the most brutal. Decided to try something different, he offered clemency to those who had fought against him and took no action to those who had chosen to remain neutral. This helped him win over the population that he was now going to rule.
"Their departure left the soldiers free to fraternize. There was a general exodus from the Pompeian camp; the men began asking after personal friends and fellow-townsmen in Caesar's camp, and called them out. Firstly, they all expressed their thanks to all of our men for having spared them the day before, when they were utterly terror-stricken. `We owe our lives to you,' they said. They then asked weather Caesar could be trusted, and whether they would be right to put themselves in his hands; they expressed regret for not having done so in the first place and having joined battle with their own friends and kinsmen." p.72
Like his book on the Gallic War, Caesar likes to quote dialogues that there was no way he could have been privy to. Granted, later defectors could have given him such information but it is still very unlikely that he could have known what they would have said word for word. It is also interesting the Caesar, of course, keeps out the famous Egyptian queen, Cleopatra. It is said that he did not later chapters such as the Alexandrian War and the African War, but I could not see any differences when I was reading them.
"If at any time Pompey acted with particular slowness or deliberation, they would say that the business need keep them only a single day, and that Pompey took pleasure from being in command and was treating ex-consuls and ex-praetors as if they were his slaves. They were already starting to squabble openly among themselves about rewards and priesthoods and were assigning the consul ships for years to come, while some were claiming houses and property of those in Caesar's camp." p.148
I highly enjoyed this book and I recommend it to anyone interested in the time period, I would also recommend Adrian Goldsworthy small work Caesar's Civil War as a reference guide while reading.
April 30, 2012
Invaluable not only as first-person eyewitness history to what was really going on in the corrupt Roman Republic that drove such a great man to rebel against it, and institute the phenomenal Pax Romana of 100 years, the greatest in history since the best of the Egyptian pharaohs, but as a realistic view of Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra and who they really were. So much bunk has been written and filmed about them. Caesar mentions Antony frequently as a great soldier and general, loyal, and full of daring initiative, and 'Shakspere' barely touches on his position as a Flamen Dialis and basically a High Priest of Divi Iulius. And Cleopatra? Loyal and intelligent ally, in only a few strategic and political references. She was obviously impressive to him as a strong leader, and it's easy to read between the lines that a lot was going on in his mind; he ends the Book there. We last see him in his own words in Egypt. The subsequent Wars in Africa and Spain and Rome were written, apparently, by other hands, fellow soldiers and eyewitnesses. Why in fact does Caesar leave off his sensible, and very readable, autobiographical narrative in the middle of 47 b.c.e. in Alexandria, 3 years before his terrible murder in the Roman Senate? His 'Bello Civili' is THE only real, contemporary history of that time, by a main player - AND Cleopatra's gigantic carvings of herself and their son Caesar Ptolemy XV at Dendera, and on coins and a few stone stelae. Those are the only reliable facts we have. Everything else hundreds of years after that, in Plutarch and Josephus, is second- or third-hand gossip almost, and anti-Divi at that, written by, astonishing as it is, by pro-Senate apologists! How can anyone, to this day, say anything good about those 23 butchers in the Senate? But they do. The Republic and Democracy are the greatest human idea ever invented, if we are to believe the republicans and democrats of the world.
No, Caesar was right, in my book. He was a warrior, yes, and killed a lot of people. That's human history, unfortunately. As sensible realists, Caesar, Antony, and Cleopatra, and probably Caesar Ptolemy XV as well - whom I think lived a long and famous life, and was NOT killed by Uncle Augustus in 30 b.c.e. as only later historians routinely have repeated, with no evidence - ruled over a brilliant 100 year period of extraordinary scientific and artistic enlightenment from 50 bce-50 ce. Anyone who has been in the whole Mediterranean region and seen what they did and said during the years of their lifetimes cannot mistake the immortal Egyptian-esque temples, libraries, sculpture, and whole cities in North Africa, Petra, Masada, Caesarea Maritima, Ephesus, etc. etc.,that were the result of Julius Caesar's genius, Clementia, and vision, stamina, and first-class mind.
Anyone truly interested in getting to the bottom of that quasi-Christian genesis must read this book. It's mandatory.
No, Caesar was right, in my book. He was a warrior, yes, and killed a lot of people. That's human history, unfortunately. As sensible realists, Caesar, Antony, and Cleopatra, and probably Caesar Ptolemy XV as well - whom I think lived a long and famous life, and was NOT killed by Uncle Augustus in 30 b.c.e. as only later historians routinely have repeated, with no evidence - ruled over a brilliant 100 year period of extraordinary scientific and artistic enlightenment from 50 bce-50 ce. Anyone who has been in the whole Mediterranean region and seen what they did and said during the years of their lifetimes cannot mistake the immortal Egyptian-esque temples, libraries, sculpture, and whole cities in North Africa, Petra, Masada, Caesarea Maritima, Ephesus, etc. etc.,that were the result of Julius Caesar's genius, Clementia, and vision, stamina, and first-class mind.
Anyone truly interested in getting to the bottom of that quasi-Christian genesis must read this book. It's mandatory.
November 26, 2011
Casear's The Civil War is actually three related books: a long one by Julius himself on the initial crossing of the Rubicon, the battles in Spain and defeated Pompey in Alexandria. His account ends abruptly, but is continued by anonymous accounts continuing through events in Alexandria, then through northern Africa and finally in Spain.
Like his account of the Gallic wars, Casear's section is straight-forward and enthralling, although one should keep his aims in mind: these are not unbiased looks at how things unfolded. These books were meant to show how great a leader he was; in so many words, they're propaganda, reading meant to excite the masses.
Even now, some 2000 years after the events within took place, they're still great reading. Unlike some of his contemporaries - Plutarch comes to mind - Casear's prose is uncluttered and direct. When he writes of battles, his first-hand knowledge shines: at times it feels like a conversation with the leader. But when he writes about how he spared this person or that town, showing off how merciful he could be, it bogs down the general reader (although it's worth noting he was pretty lenient, much more so than some of the people who followed him as Emperor).
However, the other three books are more mixed: the Alexandrian account is interesting reading, the Spanish War is fragmentary and disjointed and the African war is somewhere in between. The differences between them and Casear's are stark, and not just in language: only after you see them repeatedly say the gods decided who would win which battle do you realize secular Casear's writings could be.
Penguin's edition is translated by Jane Gardner, who also provided a great introduction and copious notes in the back: maps, a listing of who's who and many footnotes throughout the book. I can't speak to the nuts and bolts of her translation, I'm willing to credit her for how readable the book is: it never gets lost in terminology or untranslated terms. And going by her notes on the text, I'm inclined to believe she was pretty faithful to the original.
All in all, The Civil War is a great, if unbiased, read on the first Roman Civil war and the end of the Roman Republic. Recommended for ancient history buffs.
Like his account of the Gallic wars, Casear's section is straight-forward and enthralling, although one should keep his aims in mind: these are not unbiased looks at how things unfolded. These books were meant to show how great a leader he was; in so many words, they're propaganda, reading meant to excite the masses.
Even now, some 2000 years after the events within took place, they're still great reading. Unlike some of his contemporaries - Plutarch comes to mind - Casear's prose is uncluttered and direct. When he writes of battles, his first-hand knowledge shines: at times it feels like a conversation with the leader. But when he writes about how he spared this person or that town, showing off how merciful he could be, it bogs down the general reader (although it's worth noting he was pretty lenient, much more so than some of the people who followed him as Emperor).
However, the other three books are more mixed: the Alexandrian account is interesting reading, the Spanish War is fragmentary and disjointed and the African war is somewhere in between. The differences between them and Casear's are stark, and not just in language: only after you see them repeatedly say the gods decided who would win which battle do you realize secular Casear's writings could be.
Penguin's edition is translated by Jane Gardner, who also provided a great introduction and copious notes in the back: maps, a listing of who's who and many footnotes throughout the book. I can't speak to the nuts and bolts of her translation, I'm willing to credit her for how readable the book is: it never gets lost in terminology or untranslated terms. And going by her notes on the text, I'm inclined to believe she was pretty faithful to the original.
All in all, The Civil War is a great, if unbiased, read on the first Roman Civil war and the end of the Roman Republic. Recommended for ancient history buffs.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 173 reviews