The Conquest Of Gaul

by Gaius Julius Caesar, S.A. Handford (Translator)

"Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres..." is, perhaps, the most famous opening line of any memoir in Western civilization. What Caesar & the Romans called "Gaul," altho we usually think of it as France, also comprised Belgium, the German lands west of the Rhine, southern Holland & much of Switzerland. This is the only military campaign of the ancient world for which we have a chronicle written by the general who conducted it. Julius Caesar is an insightful historian, with a keen eye for detail, as in this about the repulsion of the forces of the German king Ariovistus:

Caesar placed each of his five generals ahead of a legion & detailed his quaestor to command the remaining legion, so that every soldier might know that there was a high officer in a position to observe the courage with which he conducted himself, & then led the right wing first into action, because he had noticed that the enemy's line was weakest on that side.

Genres: History, Classics, Nonfiction, Ancient History, War, Biography, Military History

256 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 51

About the author

born 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.

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

This is what I was brought to by a childhood of reading Asterix.

Unlike Asterix the injuries aren't restricted to black eyes and broken bones, nor is there a big feast at the end. The warfare is savage, and at the end Caesar tumbles into The Civil War that ends the Roman republic.

The fighting is savage on both sides. One of the Gaulish leaders, Vercingetorix, has the ears cut off or an eye gouged out of his own soldiers "even for a minor fault" (p157), Roman civilians are massacred on occasion while Caesar in his own account records the extermination of substantial proportions of entire peoples, sells the populations of captured towns in to slavery and in a moment of mercy has a hand of every man captured in one of his last campaigns chopped off to serve as a visual aid to clarify the folly of resisting Rome to the unenlightened. Though of course he could have been exaggerating to impress the people back home.

Part of the reason for the savagery is logistics. Tens of thousands of men roaming round Gaul needed food and fodder. It seems that an ad hoc supply network was created (p.174 and p.183) to meet Roman needs but in addition the soldiers regularly gathered in crops whenever they could and occasionally cattle. Vercingetorix, who led the big campaign against Caesar that involved most of the peoples of Gaul, is reported as realising this and advised that they should carry out a scorched earth defence, abandoning all towns that couldn't be defended against the Romans as well as starting fighting in winter.

What is striking about the Romans is their sheer bloodymindedness. In the face of overwhelming opposition they fight on. Soldiers ford the Thames and the Loire with water to their shoulders expecting to have to fight on the far bank the Thames in the past was far wider and shallower than it is today . They dig massive siege works - a ten mile ditch and rampart round Alesia and a fourteen mile ditch and rampart round that to defend themselves against any relieving force this was apparently confirmed by excavations carried out in the reign of Napoleon III, although there has been some controversy if it was the right site or just another Gallic town surrounded by massive Roman siege works - this is also referred in Asterix . Build bridges over the Rhine. Construct and repair ships. In short, join the army, it'll make a master builder of you.

Suetonius, admittedly writing The Twelve Caesars a good hundred and fifty years after the events wrote that Caesar lost no opportunity of picking quarrels - however flimsy the pretext - with allies as well as hostile and barbarous tribes, and marching against them; the danger of this policy never occurred to him. Understandably, Caesar's own account makes it all sound a little more reasonable than that, there is a fair attempt made to make it sound like an accidental bit of empire building. You know how it is, one day you are just marching against the Helvetii, the next thing you know ten years have passed and you seem to have inadvertently conquered all of Gaul, invaded Britain and Germany twice and written a set of memoirs putting the best light on your activities and lucky escapes from disaster.

From early on Gallic leaders seems suspicious of the extent of Caesar's ambitions, Ariovistus' (a warlord from beyond the Rhine) defence (pp.52-3) of his own role in northern Gaul seems to mirror Caesar's activities: I'm not the aggressor, I was called in by the locals to defend them, this big army I've got with me is purely for my own protection and not to threaten anyone...Gaul, however, was not big enough for the two of them.

Caesar starts out with little campaigns but is drawn in his own words further away from the Roman Province in southern France into greater offensive measures which provoke bigger resistance down to the massive effort of Vercingetorix and his confederates culminating with the defeat of said champion at the town of Alesia. There, besieged by the Romans he runs out of food, expels the town's population who are then trapped between Vercingetorix's and Caesar's lines with nothing to eat, only to see the relieving army defeated. After this there was another year or so of smaller scale campaigns before all Gaul was conquered. And everybody not dead presumably traumatised and in shock.

We get a picture of Gaul on the eve of conquest. A marked division between rich and poor. Larger states with annually elected officials and leaders in the south. Politics governed by clashes within and between important families for political power. It all sounds rather like the Rome of Caesar's own time but with a Gallic flavour.

There are some ethnographic snippets, a couple of pages on the Druids (possibly the most surviving about them that was written in antiquity), the use of hedges in warfare among the Belgians, that the Germans live off meat and milk (despite which when the Romans cross the Rhine they set about gathering in the crops that the Germans grow), that the ancient Britons paint themselves blue shave their bodies apart from their upper lip (perhaps this is why there was no British equivalent of Cleopatra) and had marriages between many men and one woman. Since Caesar presumably was too busy conquering to spend time skulking about the huts of natives observing their marital customs I have to wonder if his leg was being pulled here by his informants as it was about the elk, which he tells us is a beast with no knees that can only sleep by leaning against trees and is completely helpless should it fall over.

There's some interesting body language - while the Romans are trying to capture Gergovia the townswomen bare their breasts when appealing to the Romans for mercy but appear with loosened hair when encouraging their menfolk to fight more fiercely. Presumably they would have lost heart completely and instantly surrendered if their wives had their hair in buns or pinned up in elaborate hairstyles.

Something which comes to mind is that there are two contrasting narratives going on - one is familiar, the Britons and the Germans are 'other' they have weird clothes and habits, they are not like us, they are frightening enemies therefore Caesar's 'success' in over-coming them is all the greater, however in Gaul the narrative is different - they are like us, (well like the Romans) and not 'other' they have elected consuls, they have military discipline, they have engineering skills, in short Caesar portrays them as Romanised, however the two narratives converge - both groups are subject to Roman rule and can be subdued by Roman military and political talent. Rome recognises no limits to its rule, neither the Rhine nor the Ocean shall hold the Roman back.

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Conquering Gaul was a challenge, even for a general as able as Julius Caesar. Writing about it in just the right way, so as to persuade a divided Roman people that he was the leader Rome needed, was a challenge of its own. But if ever there was a man who welcomed a challenge, that man was Julius Caesar; and this edition of The Conquest of Gaul reveals much about Caesar as politician, general, author, and human being.

Caesar had good reason to want to tell his own story of fighting the Gauls in modern France; his enemies in Rome resented his growing power, and the book that was known in its own time and place as Commentarii de Bello Gallico gave Caesar a chance to get his own version of events before the people of Rome. The book therefore worked for Caesar as radio and television and Twitter have worked for some American presidents; it gave Caesar a way to reach the Roman people in a direct, unmediated manner by using the latest communications technology.

Julius Caesar was not the first classical writer to adopt the expedient of describing his own actions in the third person, to give his account of his own actions a false air of “objectivity”; the Athenian writer Xenophon had done the same thing in his Anabasis (The March Up Country). But if Xenophon pioneered that technique, Caesar made it his own.

It will surprise no one that Caesar chronicles these events in a way that is, well, favourable to Caesar. When, for example, Caesar treats of the reluctance of some of his men to engage the numerically superior forces of the Germanic chieftain Ariovistus, for example, he describes how he upbraided the soldiers for cowardice, and added that “those who tried to disguise their cowardice by pretending to be anxious about the corn supply or the difficulties of the route…either lacked confidence in their general’s sense of duty or else meant to dictate to him” (p. 51). Caesar further declared that, if necessary, he would face Ariovistus alone, with only the 10th Legion as a glorified bodyguard. Caesar tells us that “This address had a dramatic effect on all ranks, and inspired them with the utmost enthusiasm and eagerness for action” (p. 52). Problem solved! Yay!

But was it really that simple? Did Caesar really inspire the Roman army through the force of his personality and rhetoric alone? Or did he need to resort to some of that army's famously severe military discipline in order to motivate the more recalcitrant of his soldiers? We have only Caesar’s answers to those questions.

Caesar sounds rather like a spin-minded politician when he makes excuses for things not going as well as he might have expected. His description of the first Roman invasion of Great Britain is characteristic in that regard. It is indeed understandable that an amphibious invasion against a well-prepared enemy force standing on dry land is likely to be difficult; but Caesar places a great deal of emphasis on how the perils of getting off a boat and splashing through the surf to face the spears and arrows of the Britons “frightened our soldiers, who were quite unaccustomed to battles of this kind, with the result that they did not show the same alacrity and enthusiasm as they usually did in battles on dry land” (p. 99). It is for this reason, Caesar claims, that the ultimately successful Roman invasion force “charged the enemy and put them to flight, but could not pursue very far, because the cavalry had not been able to hold their course and make the island. This was the one thing that prevented Caesar from achieving his usual success” (p. 100).

Was it really that way? Were the setbacks during the invasion of Britain the result of timid infantry and wayward cavalry? Or might it have had something to do with the strategic and tactical plans made by the commander of the invading force – Caesar, that is – before the invasion began? If the latter scenario has anything to do with the truth, Caesar is not going to tell us. There is no et hircum sistunt (“the buck stops here”) to be found in Caesar’s work.

Caesar’s chief antagonist in The Conquest of Gaul is Vercingetorix, “a very powerful young Arvernian” whose father “had been put to death by his compatriots for seeking to make himself king” (p. 156). As Caesar tells it, the apple does not fall far from the Arvernian tree; Vercingetorix “went round the countryside raising a band of vagabonds and beggars” and “had no difficulty in exciting their passions” (p. 156). Vercingetorix is further described as a man whose “iron discipline” included torture, maiming, and execution of those who resisted his orders, and who “By this terrorism…quickly raised an army” (p. 157). Caesar has his designated bad guy firmly set in place – the “barbarian” who must be conquered by Roman civilization.

Vercingetorix, as it turns out, is no match for Caesar, whose superior strategy and tactics and more disciplined soldiers carry the day. At the same time, there is a definite pathos to the way in which Vercingetorix is depicted as meeting defeat, and almost certain death, with courage and dignity. Addressing an assembly of the defeated Gauls, Vercingetorix states that “I did not undertake the war…for private ends, but in the cause of national liberty. And since I must now accept my fate, I place myself at your disposal. Make amends to the Romans by killing me or surrender me alive as you think best” (p. 200). As the book’s translator and commentator approvingly notes, “So ended the brief and brilliant career of a great patriot” (p. 235).

Vercingetorix was taken to Rome, made to walk in chains behind Caesar's chariot as part of the traditional Roman triumph, and executed six years later; but he lives on as a national hero in France, where a statue at Clermont-Ferrand shows him galloping along on horseback, exhorting his troops to keep on defying the legions of Rome.

The ongoing popularity of this book no doubt has much to do with its direct, straightforward literary style. Caesar, writing for ordinary people, keeps his vocabulary and sentence structure basic, down-to-earth, and accessible. No doubt it is partly for that reason that so many high-school Latin classes of today begin as my Latin class at a Catholic prep school in Washington, D.C., began: by translating the beginning of The Conquest of Gaul. Caesar writes, “Gallia omnia in tres partes divisa est”; the student translates, “The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts”; and both student and Caesar are off to the chariot races.

It is impossible to read The Conquest of Gaul without wondering how much of it is reliable and how much is “fake news” or “alternative facts.” Caesar was a skilled writer, a brilliant general, and a canny politician; he was also not above serving as his own chief propagandist. But no matter how much of The Conquest of Gaul may be true, or exaggerated, or wholly false, it is a fast-moving book that provides the reader with a compelling look into the mind of Julius Caesar.

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

“In the end, it is impossible not to become what others believe you are.”
― Julius Caesar



I kept jumping back and forth between my Loeb Classics version of The Gallic War and my Penguin Classics version of The Conquest of Gaul. Reading Caesar makes me want to go back and learn Latin (the Loeb Classics keep seductively singing to me of the benefits of a Latin education). Anyway, I only meant to start the The Conquest of Gaul today, but the compelling narrative of Caesar's Gallic War (the record of his battles against Vercingetorix and the other chieftains) was just too damn compelling.

It is hard to underestimate the importance of JC (no not THAT JC) in terms of military strategy, political acumen, propagandistic spin, and his shrewd combination of prudent warfare and bold action. There are certain men who get caught up in history and certain men who make history and Caesar, even without his spin, sits pretty near the top of the heap with those other Übermensch who make history.

[Matt (Fully supports developing sentient AGI) · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Gauls never got much attention in any of my world history classes - Mostly just an obstacle for JC in his adventures around the empire. I always thought this unfair and a bit unkind, especially since they are my ancestors, my kinfolk. The Gauls were wildly successful and prolific by most standards, but they had the misfortune of living next door to the most powerful empire on Earth.

Slightly begrudging thanks to JC for his excellent acumen at the written reports of his activities. The Gallic War offers remarkable detail about his strategies, tactics, and logistics. And I liked the detailed record-keeping disciplined into the Roman army. You don't often hear so much about the sowing, growing, looting, securing and transportation of food (mostly referred to as "Corn" as a generalized term for mostly grains). An army marches on its stomach.

I found my imagination spinning often, asking questions like - How should the Gauls have fought the Roman Empire since they could not match their organization and discipline? Was there a way to make the conflict more asymmetric? Super thought-provoking work and a treasure of history.

[Aurelia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Between 58 and 50 BCE, Julius Caesar, then proconsul of Cisalpine Gaulle, the roman province situated in modern North of Italy, led a long military campaign in Gaulle, known to us today as modern France, Switzerland, Belgium and reached Germania, the territory beyond the Rhine River. Furthermore, he invaded Britain on two separate occasions. This is his account of those events which was dispatched to Rome, a sort of political propaganda to justify his motives to have gone this far. Those motives are a combination of defending Roman frontiers, subjugating barbarian peoples to Roman hegemony, amassing wealth by plunder and finally personal political ambition and military prestige.


The text offers a precious description of the peoples on those parts of the world at that time. Although they all lived in tribes, they had different political constitutions, costumes and religions. The development of agriculture and commerce varied from quit advanced in Gaulle, because of exchange with the neighboring Roman provinces; to nonexistent such as it is the case with the Germans. One thing they all shared was their warlike nature. By the first century BCE they already had a long history of hostility with the Romans. Even among each other, Peace seeking was not their greatest virtue. The presence and growing influence of Rome further complicated the matter, as many Gallic tribes were already in alliance with Rome and counted on its help to advance their power over fellow tribes.


Although considered as barbarians by the Romans, they had a developed conscience of national unity and a sense of liberty from any foreign subjugation. They put up a fierce resistance with massive rebellions. Julius Caesar had all this political game to play with the tribal chieftains, an endless my enemy’s enemy is my friend, and with what tribe should I ally myself to advance my agenda. On many occasions, even exchanging hostages and having Roman forces garrisoned in their territories was not enough to deter them from plotting an uprising.


Another very fascinating part of this text is the details on one of the most efficient and advanced war machines that ever existed: the Roman Army. In this situation, the Romans are usually outnumbered, fighting in dense forests which were very alien to them, facing ambushes by the natives and constantly preoccupied with logistical challenges of supplies without which they will be starved to death. But they had the advantage of ingenuity and hard work to their side. They had far more advanced technology and experience in siege craft like towers and terraces, trenches several miles long, not mentioning bridge construction twice to cross the Rhine, and Shipbuilding twice to cross the Channel. Discipline is also important, movements were organized, decision making was brilliant, and orders were carefully executed. A great sense of cohesion unites the army; Caesar seems to be very attentive to the state of his troops, and stops here and there to praise their bravery and sense of duty, not only officers or military tribunes, but even centurions and ordinary soldiers.


The Gallic wars are written in a very simple language, but unexpected gems keep coming out of them. Contrary to this image we hold of Caesar being in total control of the situation, he takes his time to talk about how luck is crucial in warfare. And when we think of Romans soldiers being these fearless people who willingly choose a life of extreme violence, he suddenly starts to describe how they may get panic stricken and superstitious, easily driven by hopes of victory and demoralized by the most trivial setback. It makes Caesar and his army more human to us.

[Murray · Rating 5 out of 5]

📜 🏺 There is something exciting about picking up a book that’s over 2000 years old and reading a first hand account of what one part of the world was like in those days. It’s not so much about the battles, for me, but the descriptions of the tribes (many of which no longer exist) and where the borders were, what the countries were called, what their customs were, what their rituals and religions were, how they dressed, what they ate …..

📜 🗡️ It’s a fascinating book and extremely well-written by Julius Caesar himself.

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

Addition:
The library just purchased the newly published Landmark edition, so I requested it to verify that it is as outstanding as the other volumes in the Landmark series. Definitely yes.

In short, do not accept any substitutes. This volume includes Caesar’s Gallic War and Civil War, as well as all or parts of three relevant works by unknown authors: the Alexandrian War, the African War, and the Spanish War. Also an excellent and substantial introduction that provides: a solid biography, the historical and political context of each work, a critical analysis of its literary purpose and value, and an assessment of reliability.

In addition there are the Landmark signature features: a massive number of notes (often half or more of a page), a one line summary of the content of every book and chapter up front, running marginal and page top guides, maps, illustrations, a 25 page biographical Who’s Who in Caesar, a section of thumbnail biographies of ancient authors, a glossary, an 80 page index, a gazetteer for the maps, and two brief appendices on Roman calendars/dates/time and on the military.

I plan on saving up for this because I listened originally. Still, I think listening is also a good way to approach the work because it gives you a sense of the literary accomplishment and of the energy and propulsion the man had. Listening is as if a cultured veteran officer, back from the wars, were telling you how it went.

Original review:

A classic for many reasons.

Caesar is, first of all, a masterful writer. As so many other reviewers have said, the pace is cracking. He offers an adept mix of strategy and tactics discussions, actual battle scenes, politics within his own command, and both military and ethnographic descriptions of the Gauls. His timing in switching from one to the other is perfect. Caesar is unbelievably visual in the battle scenes. Just the words paint an easily understood picture of the terrain and the distribution of the troops.

But the part I found most interesting in both this book and The Civil War is the multi-tasking, range of skills, and sheer physical work required of the Roman soldier. One knows they had to march double time with heavy packs (no high-tech materials back then) and then wield very heavy weapons in battle. But they also spent countless days--months sometimes-- building fortifications and siege machines out of massive beams. They constructed hundreds of ships--twice--to attack Britain. They would march all day then build miles of earthen barriers with simple tools before they went to bed, or come up with something to block the enemy’s options. I’m sure there were craftsmen who traveled as part of the army to do at least some of this work, but it seems as if the soldiers were kept busy at all times.

Which brings us to the quantities of soldiers on both sides. I do find the numbers unbelievable. Can it be possible that both sides regularly mustered armies in the hundreds of thousands? Probably much of this is Caesar’s grandstanding. The peasants, of course, had to supply the provisions, sometimes paid and often not. The role that provisions and water play in strategy and battle plans is omnipresent. Also, the different mobility of different parts of the army: cavalry, infantry, supplies. This looks to be one of those books that requires me to read another book to understand more about it; in this case, a history of the Roman military.

This is also an excellent read on leadership. Granted this is Caesar’s version of things, written for a very specific political purpose. But even allowing for a great deal of fiction, the rhetoric of the speeches is very effective and great reading.

Suggestion: you need a good historical atlas and a glossary of military terms if you are going to listen to this, or if your hard copy doesn’t have good resources.

With regard to the brutality and the massive scale of destruction that apparently leads other reviewers to downgrade the rating for this book. The rating is for the writing, not the person. Over the past few years I’ve read Herodotus, histories ofAlexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, central Asia, and the Byzantine Empire, and novels about the Spanish inquisition, World War I, World War II, and the Spanish Civil War. Next up: The Thirty Years War. Men are frequently mass murderers. They probably always will be. Yes, Caesar ordered his soldiers to kill hundreds of thousands of people. At least tens of thousands of his soldiers were killed. But if he hadn’t someone else would have. We just don’t read very many memoirs of people who admit it.

[Old Dog Diogenes · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was only slightly disappointed that this book was written in the third person, and aside from my discontented expectation to be reading Julius Caesar in the first person this history was completely engrossing. Most fascinating (to me at least) was the ethnographic aspect concerning Gallic peoples, Germanic peoples, and the Britons. Learning about the Hierarchy of druids throughout the region for example. Or that it was disgraceful for a boy to be seen in public around his father until he was of fighting age. Fascinating stuff. The pacing of the writing was excellent, descriptions of skirmishes and bouts of violence alongside military tactics and analysis made it easy to follow Caesar's campaign. It's no wonder this book has had such a lasting impact. It is a valuable resource to us as a primary latin text as well as a treasure trove of cultural information concerning the ancient peoples inhabiting northern Europe.

[J.G. Keely · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nothing better represents Caesar's understanding of how to play upon the hopes and joys of man than the fact that he was able to turn a few hundred pages of troop movements into a thoughtful, engrossing narrative. We read not only Caesar's thoughts and intentions in the work, but also gain an invaluable view of Roman politics. In his own words, Caesar sets the scene for the events which soon overtook the empire and captured the imagination of western literature for thousands of years to come.

If the secret to enjoying Tolkien is skipping all the poetry and troop movements, I never thought this reflected poorly on poetry as an art, but I must admit I never realized that there was an art to the military memoir to reflect poorly on. I shall have to do my best to remedy this, though whether there are accounts which equal Caesar's in elegance and focus, I remain in doubt.

[Meike]

Nope, the title doesn't mean "beautiful Gaul", you barbari! :-) For all the nerds out there who are into Latin, classical rhetoric, language as a political tool and European history, Caeasar's account of the Gallic war is of course crack. Consisting of eight books (the last one written by Aulus Hirtius, Caesar's secretary), we get the Roman Emperor's viewpoint and interpretation, presented in pristine, crystal-clear sentences - this text doesn't bother with atmosphere and veils its opinions in an objective tone, an impression that is heightened by the use of the third person throughout the account. Caesar is not a historian, he's a politician who uses the annalis and commentarii form to convey his convictions.

And there's one more application for this text: It de facto divides people nolens volens into two groups depending on their reaction to this corpus delicti:

„Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam, qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.“

If your reaction is simply "???", it means you missed out because you didn't learn Latin - every student of the language knows those lines. But errare human est, so you should now carpe each diem and ora et labora - learn Latin, prudentia potentia est! :-)

[P.E. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A representative instance of classical rhetoric, an outstanding piece of fear-mongering propaganda, an antic textbook case on how to sell a war.

----------

Un travail de propagande remarquable, très instructif sur l'art de vendre une guerre.

[Jesús De la Jara · Rating 5 out of 5]

"César es obligado en contra de su forma de ser a llevarlo al suplicio ante la enorme afluencia de soldados, quienes le echaban en cara todos los peligros y pérdidas sufridas por la guerra ..., de manera que su cuerpo azotado hasta la muerte fue decapitado por el hacha"

Me encantó haber podido leer esta obra que también (no sé cuántas veces lo he dicho) conocí por "Rojo y Negro". Julio César, el romano más famoso de la historia, cuenta en un estilo directo, conciso y extraordinario la campaña contra la Galia, territorio correspondiente casi de la actual Francia, Bélgica, Holanda, Suiza y algo de Alemania, un territorio considerado ocupado por bárbaros y que fue sometido por Roma. Entre las cosas por las que me gustó fue que César habla de los territorios actuales de Francia pero de hace miles de años donde el río Sena se llamaba Sécuana, se habla por primera vez de los parisios (derivación posterior de parisinos) y de muchos lugares franceses a los cuales yo les tengo aprecio. El leer por la pluma de César de estos territorios y transportarse a las acciones legendarias de esa época por los romanos y galos fue para mí una experiencia sensacional.
Estos comentarios a la Guerra de las Galias tiene un afán publicitario probablemente para el mismo César, el cual no muy después emprenderá la guerra civil contra Pompeyo, pero el legado para la humanidad, el estilo de latín tan depurado y las acciones que narra hacen olvidar ese detalle. César nos cuenta sus planes durante todo el relato, se da tiempo para hacer descripciones amplias de los pueblos bárbaros, sus costumbres, sus líderes, su geografía, Etc; a la hora de hablar de las acciones bélicas es descriptivo y muy crítico, habla de los errores de los romanos, no deja de hablar de los momentos en los que los suyos tuvieron miedo o se comportaron mal, pero también alaba la calidad de sus tropas, la lealtad de sus centuriones, legados o generales. Se siente el honor y el espíritu que hizo tan grande a Roma, en sus batallas, discursos, diligencias, constancia pero también en su impasibilidad e incluso crueldad en algunas acciones contra los bárbaros.
El asalto de Alesia, episodio legendario de la Guerra de las Galias, es contado no sólo como hazaña bélica sino como cálculo y juego de inteligencias muy bien orquestado por César para someter a sus enemigos como el fiero Vercingétorix. Nunca deja César que los bárbaros crean a Roma vencida, no les da respiro y así mismo sus lugartenientes conocen su voluntad. César estuvo siempre cerca de sus soldados lo que le ganó un gran prestigio y su lealtad a ciegas.
Esta obra se dice que se usa para enseñar latín por su excelente dicción y esta edición de Cátedra vale su peso en oro pues tiene también la obra en el latín original. Un 5 estrellas bien merecido.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

In his excellent intro to his translation of this text, Handford gives the reader a good glimpse of just how exceptional a person Julius Caesar was. Incomparable field general, adept politician, accomplished statesman, a very real care for the advancement of Roman civilization / improvements for its citizens - AND the dude can write? "No other great general of antiquity has left us his own accounts of his campaigns," Handford writes, "and it is doubtful if any other great general, of any age or country, has possessed Caesar's literary talent."

History is certainly written by the victors, but at least Julius knows how to keep the reader engaged. Military histories aren't for everyone, but if you have even a passing interest in the how (and why) Caesar subdued the middle of the continent, this is worth a read. Although it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where Caesar is weaving Roman propoganda 2000+ years in the future it doesn't ache to read as it might perusing the current day headlines of a more relatable empire. Nothing new under the sun.

Vollmann refers many times to this and "The Civil Wars" in his RUaRD opus - reading this provided me some helpful bedrock for continuing my education through those books.

[Leo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting to have read the book because it's that old and all that. But it wasn't very interesting reading experience.

[William2 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I did not originally write a review of Caesar, but on reading John Keegan’s The Face of Battle I came across this comparison between Caesar and Thucydides (see The Peloponnesian War) as military historiographers, which I found quite interesting.

“Where Caesar's soldiers are automatons, Thucydides' are human beings; where their actions depend on his presence or absence, Thucydides' are motivated by self-concern (like the 'man on the right wing’) or by stuffiness (like Hipponoidas and Aristocles); where Caesar can only introduce the position of the standards as an external influence on their behaviour, Thucydides mentions the appeals of music (and, by implication, of religion), patriotism, xenophobia, professional pride; where Caesar's subordinate figures are cardboard . . . Thucydides' are individuals, with wills of their own, who suffer for mis-employing them (banishment from Sparta); and where the intervention of the leader in Caesar's battle sets things to rights, in Thucydides', King Agis's change of plan actually makes things worse for his side. Moreover . . . Caesar tells us nothing about his army, except that it obeyed his orders; the most interesting thing about it, the narrative implies, is that he was its leader. Thucydides' army, on the other hand, is one of a species of institutions interesting in themselves, with well-known but by no means uniform patterns of behaviour ('large armies are apt. . .’ —meaning that small armies may not be; 'all armies are alike in this. . .’ — meaning not necessarily so in other ways) and these patterns of behaviour are the product of human conduct and character at every level. In short, while Caesar is writing particular history, Thucydides is writing general history, by every test a more useful, a more difficult and a more illuminating form of the art.

“The objection to this depreciation of Caesar's historical skills — that he was a no-nonsense soldier whose simplifications of issues and motives was the fruit of a successful ruthlessness with concrete military difficulties — cannot be sustained. For Thucydides was also a practising soldier, whose history of the Peloponnesian War was based upon his own experience [and] eye-witness or collection of first-hand reports.” (p. 66-67)

[deniz eilmore]

not my thing, but would let henry winters mansplain it to me

[Smiley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this book is worth reading and pondering since it's written by one of the famous Roman generals and statesmen in Latin. Long time ago I first read his decisive quote, "I came, I saw, I conquered!" [Veni, vidi, vici!] somewhere with awe and wondered who said this and why. We can still read about him in innumerable biographies nowadays even though he lived 2,000 years ago. From this book, I think Julius Caesar was a leader of genius due to his wit, character and leadership. Some excerpts:

Nevertheless, Caesar made active preparations for an expedition to Britain, because he knew that in almost all the Gallic campaigns the Gauls had received reinforcements from the Britons. Even if there was not time for a campaign that season, he thought it would be of great advantage to him merely to visit the island, to see what its inhabitants were like, and to make himself acquainted with the lie of the land, the harbours, and the landing-places. (p. 119)

He saw with astonishment the towers, sappers' huts, and earthworks constructed by the Gauls, and, when Cicero's legion was paraded, found that not one man in ten remained unwounded. He was thus able to realize how grave the peril had been, and with what resolution had been conducted. He gave Cicero the high praise he deserved, congratulated the whole legion, and spoke individually to the centurions and military tribunes who were mentioned by Cicero as having specially distinguished themselves. (p. 157)

'Much as I admire the heroism that you showed,' he went on, 'in refusing to be daunted by a fortified camp, a high mountain, and a walled fortress, I cannot too strongly condemn your bad discipline and your presumption in thinking that you know better than your commander-in-chief how to win a victory or to foresee the results of an action. I want obedience and self-restraint from my soldiers, just as much as courage in the face of danger.' (p. 210)

I'm quite sure there are still some new "The Conquest of Gaul" translations published for interested readers to read but this one finely translated by S. A. Handford is understandable because of his "idiomatic translation allows modern readers to grasp the full sense of Caesar's exciting account." (back cover) Therefore, I think this is enough for those who can't read Latin. In a word, we can learn from him more when we read 'his account' rather than his biographies.

[Oguzcan Yesilyaprak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kitap aşırı kolay okunan Caesar'ın 3. Ağızdan yazdığı bir kitap. Ben okumadan önce Roma dönemine dair bahsettiğinden daha da verim bekliyordum ama bendeki beklenti belki çok olduğu için istediğim verimi alamadım.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Julius Caesar, the Roman geezer, lays omnis Gallia waste with his customary clemency, celerity, and efficiency. The Gallic War is a startling read, no less for its cracking pace and clear style, than for its shameless brutality and its unblushing depiction of greed and violence on an international scale: entire governments executed, civilian populations enslaved en masse, mass mutilations. You get the feeling sometimes that that you're reading the diaries Hitler would have written, if he had won the war.

I started reading this account of his conquests some 25 years ago, when I was an undergrad studying Latin. At that time, Caesar was simply a beginner's intro to Latin prose. After reading the first book or so, students were shuffled into more complex and presumably more rewarding books and authors. So De Bello Gallico sat on the bookshelf for a quarter century until the other day, I blew off the cobwebs, wiped away the mold, and cracked it open. I was astonished to discover I could still read Latin, and even more astounded to find that I actually enjoyed the history, in a "fascination with the abomination" sort of way.

Next to Cicero, Caesar was considered by his contemporaries to be the greatest stylist and most effective orator. He certainly has the skill to cast his side of the story in the best light. His narrative of his personal conquest of Gaul is riveting reading, well illustrated with accounts of skirmishes, sieges, ambushes, political intrigues, and brief character sketches. There were times when I even felt bad for the invading Romans who had managed to do what the Gauls themselves had never accomplished on their own: unite some two dozen warring tribes into a combined and coordinated army.

De Bello Gallico is a fascinating read, as much for its compelling story as for the insights it offers into the thoughts and methods of a dictator.

[Samuel Fuente · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sé que es propaganda proJulio César, si lo sé, obvio... Pero es una lectura que te engancha. No es difícil, es encantadora. No sé si la traducción es mejor, peor. Lo único que sé es que me lo he pasado como un enano, he sufrido con el calvo amante de mujeres y "consolador" de maridos (palabras que habrían encubierto la homosexualidad del autor en otros tiempos...) todos sus avatares y desventuras. La campaña de las Galias no fue, precisamente, un paseo. Sus batallas son detalladas, con una gran capacidad del manejo de la información (al menos desde su punto de vista). Su conocimiento étnico-antropológico no es tan excepcional: si sabe y describe la cultura celta-gala y de la geografía étnica de las Galias, no parece tener un gran conocimiento del mundo germánico. Es más, se diría que se inventa algo por encima esa información y es una necesidad de no afrontar las contingencias de la situación ante su público...
Aun así, esta obra es muy recomendable para conocer Roma y la Galia, y sobre todo contemplar la prosa y la sicología de César. Merece la pena.

[Szplug · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not only was Caesar a master self-promoter and consummate politician, but he could wield the pen with a stylistic flourish: The Gallic Wars hums along in double time, marching the reader through the entire lengthy invasion and pacification campaign of non-Narbonensis Gaul. Really, Caesar offers it all—a foretaste of the Caesarian Cycle in the story of the migratory horde of the Helvetii and their fiercely contested clash with the Roman will, resulting in a thorough Julian chastisement; then a perfect antagonist in the Teutonic, forest-limned arrogance of the Suebi chieftain Ariovistus and his sanguinary Germanic warriors ; the can't-be-improved-upon anecdote of Caesar's masterful pre-battle speech lauding the mighty Tenth Legion; and then rip-roaring carnage and slaughter, with the inevitable (save once only) climax of Caesar emerging victorious over a humbled, devastated enemy. As the ambitious Roman proconsul mows down the Gallic opposition—subduing the ferocious and bellicose Belgae, invading Britain, quashing seasonal rebellions and uprisings, sampling Gallic feminine (and masculine?) charms—the Romanization of the long-haired Celts proceeds. The Gallic subjugation reaches its apogee in the tense, fascinating details of the mass rebellion of the Gauls under the leadership of Vercingetorix and the infamous double-ringed siege of Alesia. The Gauls—fortified inside the aforementioned stronghold and aided by a huge relief force from the hinterlands—came this close to giving Caesar a spanking; alas, for the Big Hair Gauls it wasn't to be. To the accompaniment of mournful power ballads, the mighty Roman general crushed his opponents, packaged Vercingetorix off to Rome in chains, and departed anon, leaving the remaining mopping up to various loyal military tribunes.

Now, did Caesar polish his image in this third-person conceit of historic revisionism? Of course he did—it still doesn't take away from his masterful ability to describe such a wide ranging undertaking in succinct and entertaining prose. Of particular interest to me were the sparse details of his lieutenant, the enigmatic-but-talented Titus Labienus, who faithfully served as the proconsul's right-hand man throughout the Gallic campaigns—overseeing winter quarters and conducting several punitive expeditions against tribal revolts—only to flee (and eventually lose both battles and his life) to the camp of Pompey the Great in the upcoming Civil War. Under Caesar, he could do no wrong; when set against him, everything fell apart and Labienus' undoubted skill and ability diminished itself right up until he perished in Spain. The bottom line is that ancient history written from the perspective (however self-serving) of one who was there just doesn't get any better than this.

[Ileana · Rating 5 out of 5]

XXV. (1) Mientras se luchaba en todas partes, pasado ya el resto de la noche, renovándose continuamente en los enemigos la esperanza de la victoria, sobre todo al ver quemadas las cubiertas de nuestras torres y advertir la dificultad de llevar socorro a pecho descubierto; relevando ellos continuamente a los cansados con tropas de refresco y creyendo que la salvación de la Galia dependía por completo de aquel momento; sucedió ante nuestros ojos un caso que, por ser tan memorable, nos pareció que no debía ser omitido. (2) Cierto galo que ante la puerta de la ciudad arrojaba al fuego frente a una torre las bolas de sebo y pez que de mano en mano le pasaban, atravesado el costado derecho por un tiro de escorpión, cayó muerto. (3) Uno de sus compañeros, saltando por encima de su cadáver, pasó a ocupar su puesto; muerto este segundo de otro tiro semejante de escorpión, sucedióle otro tercero, y al tercero el cuarto; (4) sin que faltase quien ocupara aquel puesto de combate, hasta que, apagado el terraplén y rechazados los enemigos por todas partes, se puso fin a la lucha. [p. 188]

[Faustibooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading this book. While it may be more than 2000 years old, I thought it still felt exciting and fun to read. Written by Julius Caesar himself, the Gallic War is a series of ‘books’ that report the events by each year of Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul. From his very interesting descriptions of the peoples of Gaul, Germania and Britain to the thrilling accounts of the battles he and his soldiers fought, this book was full of interesting events and great feats. Caesar’s crossing of the Rhine, his invasion of Britain or the Battle of Alesia were all very exciting to read about.

From what I have heard, the original text in Latin is very easy to read and to understand. I think that this translation by Hammond did a great job by keeping it like that and by adding useful notes. I would love to read this book in the original Latin someday.

“Men are nearly always willing to believe what they wish.” - Gaius Julius Caesar

[Ni · Rating 3 out of 5]

César c'était un vrai cochon un raciste qui disait qu'il les gens de la Gaule c'était presque stupide dans certains sens. Il n'avait aucun problème en exterminer des populations entières rien que pour se venger d'un homme.
Caesar was a human rights violator and a racist who had the idea that the Gauls were almost stupid in a certain sense period and he had no problem with exterminating entire populations just to take revenge on one man.

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nicely written tale of military strategy, conquest, and war crimes. Caesar (or his scribes) sometimes describes some cultural attributes of the Gauls, but the book is long on action and short on analysis. On the other hand, one has to appreciate the author’s style. Although historians now doubt many aspects of the tale, Caesar writes in a simple and therefore convincing tone, seldom appearing to show undue bias against his military opponents.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sublimely lucid and rich in detail without going off on tangents.

[allison ★ · Rating 1 out of 5]

burning garbage.


(opinions may be biased because my dad made me read 200 pages of this book in one day as a little tween for school)

i really just wanna mess with the average rating tbh

[Katerina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cesare, fonte di salvezza al liceo perchè scrive chiaro, non come Cicerone che gioca con la sintassi come se fosse il lego. Cesare, che tutti ricordiamo più di Ottaviano (universalmente riconosciuto come il politico più geniale della storia del mondo). Cesare, che perdere con onore contro di lui vuol dire che potevi prendere a calci in culo la maggior parte della gente. Cesare, che sotto sotto Asterix ci sta sulle palle perchè lo ridicolizza ma quando studiamo tifiamo per Vercingetorige.

Non si può recensire La Guerra Gallica, è come cercare di insegnare alla nonna come si cucina: non sei degno.
Ma puoi notare che, in effetti, Cesare era uno di noi: questi sono appunti che aveva scritto per chi volesse redigere le cronache della guerra, non le cronache della guerra che voleva dare alle stampe (per così dire). Quindi ogni tanto fa quello che facciamo tutti con scritti non destinati al pubblico: inizia a un tempo verbale e finisce in un altro (sul serio: comincia al passato, poi all'improvviso passa al presente), che è una cosa per cui strapperei le dita a chiunque (inclusa me stessa) ma se l'ha fatto Cesare... certe cose non cambiano mai, e sono universali.

All'inizio pensavo che l'avrei trovato noioso, ma mi sono ricreduta quasi subito: Cesare scrive bene, nel senso che non ti rendi conto di quanto tempo fa è stato scritto questo libro: è chiaro, conciso. Spiega tattiche, usi, costumi, luoghi. L'evento storico raccontato e spiegato non solo da chi l'ha vissuto ma da chi l'ha creato.
Non ci sono personaggi, ci sono popoli, c'è lo scontro tra due civiltà, tra grandi condottieri.
Cesare sa benissimo che chi leggerà le sue parole non lo farà per sapere cos'è successo ma come è successo ed è questo che narra. Lo fa per tutti, non solo per gli esperti: non so nulla di strategie militari, eppure me le ha fatte capire. Mi ha fatto vedere com'erano i romani e com'erano i galli e le loro società (anche se, ovviamente, non con un punto di vista imparziale). E per questo credo di volergli un po' bene: ha palesemente lasciato questi scritti pensando alle genrazioni future... magari non così tanto future, ma il De Bello Gallico l'ha scritto anche per noi.

Una bella lettura, e fa impressione pensare che quelle sono parole che ha pensato Giulio Cesare in persona.

Ma sotto sotto tifavo ancora per i galli.

Piccola nota: l'input per la lettura mi è venuto dalla serie televisiva Rome, che ha come protagonisti due personaggi originali: Tito Pullo e Lucio Voreno. Immaginate la mia faccia quando Cesare scrive un aneddoto su due centurioni di nome Tito Pullo e Lucio Voreno, su cui è evidentemente ricalcata la mloro prima scena.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure whether I should classify this as nonfiction. A well-written piece of propaganda I read for my AP Latin class - Caesar sure knows how to entertain with his descriptions of battle and debauchery. And by debauchery, I mean bloodshed and weird ritual sacrifices.

Fans of Roman and military history will eat this up.

[Marc Lamot · Rating 3 out of 5]

Classic historical document, but with also some literary value. Enervating is of course the way in which Caesar emphasizes his own benefits, "objectifying" them. I remember reading them in Latin, in college: they still appeal, though.
(rating 2.5 stars)