What do you think?
Rate this book
Caesar: A Biography
As politician & diplomat, writer & lover, above all as a military genius, Julius Caesar is one of the perennially fascinating figures in history. Boswell called him ”the greatest man of any age.” Christian Meier’s authoritative & accessible biography is the definitive modern account of his life & career, setting his life story against the socio-political background of the Late Roman Republic.
List of Illustrations
Caesar & Rome: Two Realities
Caesar's Fascination
Crisis & Outsiders
Birth & Family
Youth in Rome
The Second Decade: Experience of the Civil War & 1st Commitment
The 1st Test: the Experience of Rome in the Decade after the Restoration 78-70
The Political Rise of the Outsider 69-60
Crisis & Tensions: Cato's Authority, Pompey's Difficulty, Caesar's Problem
The Consulship 59
Achievement in Gaul
The Process of the Crisis without Alternative, Caesar's Right to the Civil War, his Greatness
The Civil War 49-46
Failure after Victory
Afterword
Afterword to the 3rd German Paperback Edition
Index
List of Illustrations
Caesar & Rome: Two Realities
Caesar's Fascination
Crisis & Outsiders
Birth & Family
Youth in Rome
The Second Decade: Experience of the Civil War & 1st Commitment
The 1st Test: the Experience of Rome in the Decade after the Restoration 78-70
The Political Rise of the Outsider 69-60
Crisis & Tensions: Cato's Authority, Pompey's Difficulty, Caesar's Problem
The Consulship 59
Achievement in Gaul
The Process of the Crisis without Alternative, Caesar's Right to the Civil War, his Greatness
The Civil War 49-46
Failure after Victory
Afterword
Afterword to the 3rd German Paperback Edition
Index
513 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1982
80 people are currently reading
1151 people want to read
About the author
Christian Meier
82 books15 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Christian Meier is a German historian and professor emeritus of ancient history at the University of Munich.
Christian Meier is a German historian and professor emeritus of ancient history at the University of Munich.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
November 14, 2016
Interesting, controversial account of Caesar
This is written by a German Classics professor and though it's pitched as a book for the general reader, it assumes quite a lot of knowledge about Rome and its politics. Having said that, it is erudite without being overwhelming and is very well translated. It covers Caesar's life, military and political career, and puts it all into the context of the social/political crisis of the Republic.
Both a weakness and a strength is the lack of critical bibliography and footnotes - yes, they can be off-putting to the general reader, but they also help 'site' a book within current scholarship. On the other hand, by unmooring himself from the literature, Meier allows himself an imaginative depth of engagement with his subject.
Meier's interpretation of Caesar's thoughts, assumptions and motives gives this a daring depth that you don't often get in academic history, and while he never pretends it's more than his own subjective opinion, it still rings true. It's precisely this imaginative interpretation, of course, which makes this controversial in its methodology as well as its readings.
So read this for a fascinating interpretation of a fascinating man who really did stride the ancient world like a colossus, but do remember it's Meier's version, not necessarily the 'truth'.
This is written by a German Classics professor and though it's pitched as a book for the general reader, it assumes quite a lot of knowledge about Rome and its politics. Having said that, it is erudite without being overwhelming and is very well translated. It covers Caesar's life, military and political career, and puts it all into the context of the social/political crisis of the Republic.
Both a weakness and a strength is the lack of critical bibliography and footnotes - yes, they can be off-putting to the general reader, but they also help 'site' a book within current scholarship. On the other hand, by unmooring himself from the literature, Meier allows himself an imaginative depth of engagement with his subject.
Meier's interpretation of Caesar's thoughts, assumptions and motives gives this a daring depth that you don't often get in academic history, and while he never pretends it's more than his own subjective opinion, it still rings true. It's precisely this imaginative interpretation, of course, which makes this controversial in its methodology as well as its readings.
So read this for a fascinating interpretation of a fascinating man who really did stride the ancient world like a colossus, but do remember it's Meier's version, not necessarily the 'truth'.
March 20, 2017
Christian Meier approaches his subject with characteristic German Gründlichkeit. This book could well have been shortened, and it would not have suffered from it - on the contrary. It doesn’t quite take off until you’ve gone through a quarter of the pages. - Meier doesn’t seem to be really in his element until he gets to the start of Caesar’s political career, and that is more than 100 pages into the book. I almost gave up before I got there – I was ready to fling the book against the wall when Meier, writing about the Spartacus rebellion, launches into a description of the historical background of the gladiatorial games. It’s really odd that he would have thought it pertinent information also, as in other instances he seems to expect the reader to be well informed about the Roman politics of this period – and (by Jove!) it sure has nothing to do with Caesar. His descriptions of e.g. the Gracchi, the Catiline conspiracy and even Sulla are rather sketchy, though to Meier I suppose they are mostly of interest as "outsiders" – among which he includes Caesar; one of his main arguments - and he does a good job of delineating the dynamics of this (relative) "outsider" status. - Pompey as well is described rather one-dimensionally, only Cato is given more substance.
Meier writes in the Afterword that his book is meant as a "scholarly biography." So - not quite a regular biography then; it might have been better to have put some of that information in a Foreword instead (there isn't one). Within its scope it is a great and valuable achievement. He develops his main argument of Caesar as an "outsider" persistenly throughout the pages of his book, and provides a many-faceted picture of this, by any standard, exceptional man – and leader of men. - "Against any questions and objections Caesar sets himself and his actions. It is through these that he hopes to convince. It is these that are at issue, and ultimately the subject of his book [Commentarii de Bello Gallico]. And by speaking of them in his own way he imposes his own perspective. He never thought to convince his opponents." (259)
It took me a while to get used to Meier’s style of writing; he occasionally poses a whole series of rhetorical questions; he builds up his argument(s) slowly and persistently (again that aforementioned Gründlichkeit), though when I first got used to it, I found it an engaging approach. It reads a bit like a Greek drama, where everything moves ahead in the way it does simply because it must happen that way – not so entirely Greek as to include the involvement of the Gods (though just that aspect certainly would have held meaning to Caesar himself, and Meier acknowledges that), but because of the dynamics "on the ground". – But also: "Even in politics much is decided not by the actors, but through them. The total effect of their interaction always far exceeds what they settle between themselves." (348) Meier then goes on to quote Montesquieu: "If Caesar and Pompey had thought like Cato, others would have thought like Caesar and Pompey", and continues: "The roles were ready to be filled, as it were, and to play them was not only a matter of personal guilt, but at the same time a recognition of the structure of the age." Meier speaks of what he calls the "crisis without alternative": "How is it possible for an order to collapse when all who have a share in it regard it as the proper order? To put it more precisely: how is it possible for it to be destroyed by those who have a share in it, in the absence of any extraneous influence – to be destroyed when no one wishes to attack it, to be annihilated when no one repudiates it?" (349) - This is both an example of Meier’s rhetorical style as well as one of his main areas of discussion. He stresses repeatedly that the developments can only be understood when viewed within the concepts of that specific time in history. He is undoubtedly right, and this is one of the definitive strengths of his analysis.
I would have wished that Meier had included more about the military part of Caesar's education; and certainly within the specific focus of this biography this could have been useful. He touches on his relation to religion on several occasions, and how he felt especially favored by fortune, as well as his claim to have Venus in his ancestry. "Why did he so often invoke the immortals?” ... Was it part of his down-to-earth attitude that he could ignore superstitions and attend to the matter in hand? ... Was it part of his fortune that he saw in the hand of the friendly gods, to whom he rendered what was due to them?" (400) "Perhaps his religion was totally rational, based on what he had learned from experience? Seel speaks of Caesar's 'direct affinity to the numinous, to the demonic, to fortune, daring and high risk'. Indeed, there is much to suggest that Caesar had a highly personal religion. May it not be that the more isolated he became, the closer he felt to the gods?" (401) Indeed. (Though he was also appointed pontifex in 73 and pontifex maximus in 63. These sure were not just political posts.)
And on his sense of right and wrong: "We, obsessed with legitimacy, may find Caesar's self-absorption monstrous, however mild, humane, and generous it really was. And even in ancient times such legitimacy was claimed by Sulla, who justified the terrible murders resulting from his proscriptions by reference to the good of the republic. Caesar was incapable of such action. - Caesar may have acted immorally, but what was much more important was that he was different from the Romans of his age – alien, inscrutable, and then at once repellent and fascinating. This was what made him guilty vis-à-vis the republic. (...) The combination of brilliance – personal, not institutional brilliance – and power that we find in Caesar is probably almost unique in the whole of history. Yet it made him strong in relation to the republic only while he had to win victories within it. Afterwards it became evident that his strength was also his weakness, and in the end a certain melancholy of fulfilment – and a sense of futility – may have descended on him." (484) - It may, though he was also energetically preparing for the Parthian campaign up until the day of his assassination.
In several ways, Meier’s book is as much a character analysis as it is a biography of Caesar, but it is also more than that because it includes a thorough discussion of the specific historical situation and background. It cannot be read without gaining some added insight. Meier puts forth a lot of questions; he does not necessarily answer them all. And for sure, there are no easy answers. But what he does provide is an intriguing discussion of one of the most fascinating rulers in history. Meier doesn’t include references; he says in the Afterword that "it would have been incompatible with the purpose of the book" – he does however usually state his sources whenever he quotes them directly. The translation seems to be a bit lacking in parts – at least occasionally the meaning of a sentence appeared to be somehow "lost in translation" – though with Meier’s rhetorical style it is also hard to be certain about just what is what in this respect. It didn’t bother me too much however. To a degree this book reads a bit like an essay. If you want a simple and straightforward biography, look elsewhere. This book has to be read on its own premises, and it is excellent in parts, less so in others, but it is definitely engaging once it gets under way. I would have given Meier's book a higher rating had it been shortened - this is also because he has tendency to repeat himself with different words; it is of course a reader’s prerogative to simply skim through parts, though that is another matter entirely.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Meier writes in the Afterword that his book is meant as a "scholarly biography." So - not quite a regular biography then; it might have been better to have put some of that information in a Foreword instead (there isn't one). Within its scope it is a great and valuable achievement. He develops his main argument of Caesar as an "outsider" persistenly throughout the pages of his book, and provides a many-faceted picture of this, by any standard, exceptional man – and leader of men. - "Against any questions and objections Caesar sets himself and his actions. It is through these that he hopes to convince. It is these that are at issue, and ultimately the subject of his book [Commentarii de Bello Gallico]. And by speaking of them in his own way he imposes his own perspective. He never thought to convince his opponents." (259)
It took me a while to get used to Meier’s style of writing; he occasionally poses a whole series of rhetorical questions; he builds up his argument(s) slowly and persistently (again that aforementioned Gründlichkeit), though when I first got used to it, I found it an engaging approach. It reads a bit like a Greek drama, where everything moves ahead in the way it does simply because it must happen that way – not so entirely Greek as to include the involvement of the Gods (though just that aspect certainly would have held meaning to Caesar himself, and Meier acknowledges that), but because of the dynamics "on the ground". – But also: "Even in politics much is decided not by the actors, but through them. The total effect of their interaction always far exceeds what they settle between themselves." (348) Meier then goes on to quote Montesquieu: "If Caesar and Pompey had thought like Cato, others would have thought like Caesar and Pompey", and continues: "The roles were ready to be filled, as it were, and to play them was not only a matter of personal guilt, but at the same time a recognition of the structure of the age." Meier speaks of what he calls the "crisis without alternative": "How is it possible for an order to collapse when all who have a share in it regard it as the proper order? To put it more precisely: how is it possible for it to be destroyed by those who have a share in it, in the absence of any extraneous influence – to be destroyed when no one wishes to attack it, to be annihilated when no one repudiates it?" (349) - This is both an example of Meier’s rhetorical style as well as one of his main areas of discussion. He stresses repeatedly that the developments can only be understood when viewed within the concepts of that specific time in history. He is undoubtedly right, and this is one of the definitive strengths of his analysis.
I would have wished that Meier had included more about the military part of Caesar's education; and certainly within the specific focus of this biography this could have been useful. He touches on his relation to religion on several occasions, and how he felt especially favored by fortune, as well as his claim to have Venus in his ancestry. "Why did he so often invoke the immortals?” ... Was it part of his down-to-earth attitude that he could ignore superstitions and attend to the matter in hand? ... Was it part of his fortune that he saw in the hand of the friendly gods, to whom he rendered what was due to them?" (400) "Perhaps his religion was totally rational, based on what he had learned from experience? Seel speaks of Caesar's 'direct affinity to the numinous, to the demonic, to fortune, daring and high risk'. Indeed, there is much to suggest that Caesar had a highly personal religion. May it not be that the more isolated he became, the closer he felt to the gods?" (401) Indeed. (Though he was also appointed pontifex in 73 and pontifex maximus in 63. These sure were not just political posts.)
And on his sense of right and wrong: "We, obsessed with legitimacy, may find Caesar's self-absorption monstrous, however mild, humane, and generous it really was. And even in ancient times such legitimacy was claimed by Sulla, who justified the terrible murders resulting from his proscriptions by reference to the good of the republic. Caesar was incapable of such action. - Caesar may have acted immorally, but what was much more important was that he was different from the Romans of his age – alien, inscrutable, and then at once repellent and fascinating. This was what made him guilty vis-à-vis the republic. (...) The combination of brilliance – personal, not institutional brilliance – and power that we find in Caesar is probably almost unique in the whole of history. Yet it made him strong in relation to the republic only while he had to win victories within it. Afterwards it became evident that his strength was also his weakness, and in the end a certain melancholy of fulfilment – and a sense of futility – may have descended on him." (484) - It may, though he was also energetically preparing for the Parthian campaign up until the day of his assassination.
In several ways, Meier’s book is as much a character analysis as it is a biography of Caesar, but it is also more than that because it includes a thorough discussion of the specific historical situation and background. It cannot be read without gaining some added insight. Meier puts forth a lot of questions; he does not necessarily answer them all. And for sure, there are no easy answers. But what he does provide is an intriguing discussion of one of the most fascinating rulers in history. Meier doesn’t include references; he says in the Afterword that "it would have been incompatible with the purpose of the book" – he does however usually state his sources whenever he quotes them directly. The translation seems to be a bit lacking in parts – at least occasionally the meaning of a sentence appeared to be somehow "lost in translation" – though with Meier’s rhetorical style it is also hard to be certain about just what is what in this respect. It didn’t bother me too much however. To a degree this book reads a bit like an essay. If you want a simple and straightforward biography, look elsewhere. This book has to be read on its own premises, and it is excellent in parts, less so in others, but it is definitely engaging once it gets under way. I would have given Meier's book a higher rating had it been shortened - this is also because he has tendency to repeat himself with different words; it is of course a reader’s prerogative to simply skim through parts, though that is another matter entirely.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
March 31, 2016
Another re-read after a long time. Bought this in the late 1990s. Good read. It does start slow and then gets into the life of Caesar. The book captures Caesar's life from his escape from the Sulla civil war, his image of being a dandy and a profligate borrower and spender, his ride to prominence, his long years in Gaul and to his famous return to Rome. The author covers the lethargic state of politics in Rome and the dissatisfaction of it from an action oriented outsider like Caesar- to quote:
"There was nothing in Rome's internal politics to compare with Caesar's activity. They centered upon trivialities; one had to contend with the ineffable reservations and obstructions of one's peers and could do nothing important without first convincing the Senate or the popular assembly - a Senate that could now be convinced of hardly anything, and a popular assembly that could receive proposals only from a magistrate. There was scarcely any scope for action, scarcely any serious decisions to be made. Any significant enterprise were stifled before they could be initiated. Futility and tedium prevailed. It was virtually impossible to do anything from Rome. Most of the time was spent jockeying for positions that were quite meaningless to those not directly involved. Infinite effort and ingenuity went into accomplishing very little. It was doubtful if the ends justified the means. One could either join the game or suffer from it. There was nothing here of the grandeur that Rome was - nothing that could impress posterity." (side note...eerily similar to the present day.)
Meier superbly covers the interactions between the players - Cato's rigid protection of the constitution, Pompey's need to fix the immediate issues, his frustration with the Senate but his need to be seen as a Republican, Crassus's web of power flowing from his vast wealth, Caesar's craving for his achievements to be recognized above all else. The younger generations quest for, quote, "cultivation of its opportunities, its devotion to pleasure, its quest for distinction without commitment..." It seemed like a perfect storm and a perfect time for a man like Caesar to trample on the shadow of the Republic.
In short, a brilliant general, a self centered murdering maniac who courted danger and disaster - instigated an uprising in order to crush it - then demanded to be recognized as the first among the Romans.
"There was nothing in Rome's internal politics to compare with Caesar's activity. They centered upon trivialities; one had to contend with the ineffable reservations and obstructions of one's peers and could do nothing important without first convincing the Senate or the popular assembly - a Senate that could now be convinced of hardly anything, and a popular assembly that could receive proposals only from a magistrate. There was scarcely any scope for action, scarcely any serious decisions to be made. Any significant enterprise were stifled before they could be initiated. Futility and tedium prevailed. It was virtually impossible to do anything from Rome. Most of the time was spent jockeying for positions that were quite meaningless to those not directly involved. Infinite effort and ingenuity went into accomplishing very little. It was doubtful if the ends justified the means. One could either join the game or suffer from it. There was nothing here of the grandeur that Rome was - nothing that could impress posterity." (side note...eerily similar to the present day.)
Meier superbly covers the interactions between the players - Cato's rigid protection of the constitution, Pompey's need to fix the immediate issues, his frustration with the Senate but his need to be seen as a Republican, Crassus's web of power flowing from his vast wealth, Caesar's craving for his achievements to be recognized above all else. The younger generations quest for, quote, "cultivation of its opportunities, its devotion to pleasure, its quest for distinction without commitment..." It seemed like a perfect storm and a perfect time for a man like Caesar to trample on the shadow of the Republic.
In short, a brilliant general, a self centered murdering maniac who courted danger and disaster - instigated an uprising in order to crush it - then demanded to be recognized as the first among the Romans.
May 11, 2011
Meier's Caesar is a masterful work of biogaphy with great insight to a truely misunderstood personality. My Favorite biographical treatment of the Greatest of All Romans!
May 4, 2016
This is the best biography of an ancient personality that I have ever read. It was originally published in German, and an English translation was published in 1982. Right out of the gate, the translation is excellent, making this a smooth and compelling narrative. There are plenty of detailed maps in the front, as well as a good section of illustrations.
The book has a significant number of strengths, but also what I consider two weaknesses.
One significant strength is Meier’s ability to place Caesar’s life in context. What I mean is that Meier goes into significant detail on the status of the political structures found in the late republic, detailing the effect of Sulla’s dictatorship, and how this enabled the rise of Caesar and Pompey. Meier’s description of how the offices and systems functioned is excellent. Throughout the entire book, Meier details the history of the ultimate decline of the republic, keeping Caesar and the common thread running throughout the entire narrative. He does an excellent job of describing not only the political systems, but how they affected the conduct of politics, reaching back to the time of the Gracchi. Another strength is Meier’s examination of Caesar, and to some extent Pompey, as “outsiders” in Roman politics and society. These “outsiders” possessed qualities or attributes which made it difficult to assimilate into what was expected of Roman politicians. Meier argues that in Caesar’s case, he sought the outlet of the governorship of Transalpine Gaul as a way to begin achieving his goals of personal honor and prestige outside of the stifling confines of the Roman order. Meier also gives a good analysis of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, and analyzes his Commentaries in light of his actions. It was a good summary of his writing and intent behind it. Throughout the entire book, Meier examines in minute detail Caesar’s personality and examines his motives in light of his character, as well as against the backdrop of other personalities such as Pompey, Cicero and Cato. He even references Clausewitz in describing his ability and attributes as a military commander (p.303, 305). Meier’s conclusion is an excellent analysis of the decay of the late republic and Caesar’s role in it. (Spoiler- Caesar is killed.)
In his Afterword, Meier states that this book is a scholarly biography. This leads me to the two weaknesses. Meier includes an incredible amount of detail and analysis, but there are no footnotes or a bibliography to indicate the path Meier took to reach his conclusions. This leads me to subtract a star. However, this did not detract from the compelling interest and value of the content. I still find this an excellent book, albeit a very hard one to read for a sustained period of time. This is not a book to skim; it’s packed with information and needs to be read with complete attention.
The book has a significant number of strengths, but also what I consider two weaknesses.
One significant strength is Meier’s ability to place Caesar’s life in context. What I mean is that Meier goes into significant detail on the status of the political structures found in the late republic, detailing the effect of Sulla’s dictatorship, and how this enabled the rise of Caesar and Pompey. Meier’s description of how the offices and systems functioned is excellent. Throughout the entire book, Meier details the history of the ultimate decline of the republic, keeping Caesar and the common thread running throughout the entire narrative. He does an excellent job of describing not only the political systems, but how they affected the conduct of politics, reaching back to the time of the Gracchi. Another strength is Meier’s examination of Caesar, and to some extent Pompey, as “outsiders” in Roman politics and society. These “outsiders” possessed qualities or attributes which made it difficult to assimilate into what was expected of Roman politicians. Meier argues that in Caesar’s case, he sought the outlet of the governorship of Transalpine Gaul as a way to begin achieving his goals of personal honor and prestige outside of the stifling confines of the Roman order. Meier also gives a good analysis of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, and analyzes his Commentaries in light of his actions. It was a good summary of his writing and intent behind it. Throughout the entire book, Meier examines in minute detail Caesar’s personality and examines his motives in light of his character, as well as against the backdrop of other personalities such as Pompey, Cicero and Cato. He even references Clausewitz in describing his ability and attributes as a military commander (p.303, 305). Meier’s conclusion is an excellent analysis of the decay of the late republic and Caesar’s role in it. (Spoiler- Caesar is killed.)
In his Afterword, Meier states that this book is a scholarly biography. This leads me to the two weaknesses. Meier includes an incredible amount of detail and analysis, but there are no footnotes or a bibliography to indicate the path Meier took to reach his conclusions. This leads me to subtract a star. However, this did not detract from the compelling interest and value of the content. I still find this an excellent book, albeit a very hard one to read for a sustained period of time. This is not a book to skim; it’s packed with information and needs to be read with complete attention.
May 15, 2011
He was an outsider
A couple of weeks after I wrote my blog 'River crossing' I wrote an e-mail to professor Fik Meijer (University of Amsterdam). I asked him "Why did Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon and wanted to stay at the top in old Rome and was not satisfied that his consulship finally ended?" He wrote that there is not an easy (in dutch "niet zo maar") answer on this question. He pointed me at the biographies on Caesar of Luciano Canfora and Christian Meier.
Best biography on Caesar (100-44 BC)
Last week I finished reading Christian Meier's 'Ceasar. A biography' (1982). Bookjacket "Of the maybe half a dozen books on Ceasar that are worth reading, Meier's is the best."
Points of interest in Meier's biography on Julius Caesar:
* Caesar's world was dominated by two principles: care (latin 'cura') and competition. This accorded with his thinking in term of honour (latin 'dignitas') and fame. (p. 449)
* In Caesar's eyes no one existed but himself and his opponents. It was all an interpersonal game. He classified people as supporters, opponents or neutrals. (p. 359)
* Compared to his aristocratic senatorial peers Caesar was an outsider and alien. (p. 358)
* In Caesar's time the old institutions, designed for a city state, had been "overstretched", as Rome now ruled over a world-wide empire. In a way the Senate didn't recognise that their institutions were out of date and had to be transformed. The ancient thinking about social structures was static. (p. 12, 50, 195, 357, 361, 479, 483 and 491)
* For Caesar the senators were mainly Sullans: the heirs of the winning party of the civil war. Not representatives of the whole commonwealth. He could only see them as selfish instruments of the interplay of forces. Caesar had no feeling for the power of institutions to guarantee law and security. (p. 358-9, 449)
* Civil war, by crossing the Rubicon:
** Caesar was not in principle opposed to the Roman order. He acted against it because he put his own interests above the rules of Rome. (p. 219)
** He wanted to free the Roman people, Senate from the small clique of Sullans. (p. 358-360 and 364)
** Must be an "expression of the greatness" of Caesar's personality. Throughout his career he displayed an extraordinary ability and strength of mind, staying power and steadfastness. (p. 362 and 483)
** Plea for his personal right, for the honour he was owed on the basis on his achievements. It was Caesar's claim for honour against the defence of the Republic.
* After he won the civil war Caesar was not able to remove from the scene because he had not eliminated his opponents. He had to defend himself and consolidate his position. (p. 431)
Crossing Rubicon? Personal honour more important than Republic
The career of Caesar can't be understood without Sulla (138 BC - 78 BC). Sulla was the first Roman general who crossed the Rubicon for a march (91 and 87 BC) on Rome with his army. After his victory Sulla eliminated his opponents. Caesar belonged to the circle of Sulla's victims but relatives obtained a pardon for him. It made him an outsider.
Caesar crossed on his turn the Rubicon (49 BC) after the Senate refused him the honours he owed after he conquered Gaul. For him the Senate was a biased set or clique of opponents who refused to him the honours he felt entitled to. His personal honour (latin 'dignitas) was more important than the Republic. The Republic was low on his list of priorities.
Old Rome's static social structures
I read this biography because I want(ed) to understand why Caesar was so selfish. In a way I want to understand why our democracy is or should be worth fighting for.
The ancient roman world is strange to us. It's a world of Others. For Rome the social structures were static. And they didn't notice that themselves. And for us? We know that we have to adapt. We know that we have to fit social structures and conditions if it's urgent. We know - don't we?
Source: http://jeand99.blogspot.com/2011/05/h...
A couple of weeks after I wrote my blog 'River crossing' I wrote an e-mail to professor Fik Meijer (University of Amsterdam). I asked him "Why did Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon and wanted to stay at the top in old Rome and was not satisfied that his consulship finally ended?" He wrote that there is not an easy (in dutch "niet zo maar") answer on this question. He pointed me at the biographies on Caesar of Luciano Canfora and Christian Meier.
Best biography on Caesar (100-44 BC)
Last week I finished reading Christian Meier's 'Ceasar. A biography' (1982). Bookjacket "Of the maybe half a dozen books on Ceasar that are worth reading, Meier's is the best."
Points of interest in Meier's biography on Julius Caesar:
* Caesar's world was dominated by two principles: care (latin 'cura') and competition. This accorded with his thinking in term of honour (latin 'dignitas') and fame. (p. 449)
* In Caesar's eyes no one existed but himself and his opponents. It was all an interpersonal game. He classified people as supporters, opponents or neutrals. (p. 359)
* Compared to his aristocratic senatorial peers Caesar was an outsider and alien. (p. 358)
* In Caesar's time the old institutions, designed for a city state, had been "overstretched", as Rome now ruled over a world-wide empire. In a way the Senate didn't recognise that their institutions were out of date and had to be transformed. The ancient thinking about social structures was static. (p. 12, 50, 195, 357, 361, 479, 483 and 491)
* For Caesar the senators were mainly Sullans: the heirs of the winning party of the civil war. Not representatives of the whole commonwealth. He could only see them as selfish instruments of the interplay of forces. Caesar had no feeling for the power of institutions to guarantee law and security. (p. 358-9, 449)
* Civil war, by crossing the Rubicon:
** Caesar was not in principle opposed to the Roman order. He acted against it because he put his own interests above the rules of Rome. (p. 219)
** He wanted to free the Roman people, Senate from the small clique of Sullans. (p. 358-360 and 364)
** Must be an "expression of the greatness" of Caesar's personality. Throughout his career he displayed an extraordinary ability and strength of mind, staying power and steadfastness. (p. 362 and 483)
** Plea for his personal right, for the honour he was owed on the basis on his achievements. It was Caesar's claim for honour against the defence of the Republic.
* After he won the civil war Caesar was not able to remove from the scene because he had not eliminated his opponents. He had to defend himself and consolidate his position. (p. 431)
Crossing Rubicon? Personal honour more important than Republic
The career of Caesar can't be understood without Sulla (138 BC - 78 BC). Sulla was the first Roman general who crossed the Rubicon for a march (91 and 87 BC) on Rome with his army. After his victory Sulla eliminated his opponents. Caesar belonged to the circle of Sulla's victims but relatives obtained a pardon for him. It made him an outsider.
Caesar crossed on his turn the Rubicon (49 BC) after the Senate refused him the honours he owed after he conquered Gaul. For him the Senate was a biased set or clique of opponents who refused to him the honours he felt entitled to. His personal honour (latin 'dignitas) was more important than the Republic. The Republic was low on his list of priorities.
Old Rome's static social structures
I read this biography because I want(ed) to understand why Caesar was so selfish. In a way I want to understand why our democracy is or should be worth fighting for.
The ancient roman world is strange to us. It's a world of Others. For Rome the social structures were static. And they didn't notice that themselves. And for us? We know that we have to adapt. We know that we have to fit social structures and conditions if it's urgent. We know - don't we?
Source: http://jeand99.blogspot.com/2011/05/h...
January 8, 2009
This was the best political biography I had read until i came across Robert Caro's LBJ series.
Translated from German, Christian Meier gives a very interesting and revealing historical and psychological analysis of Julius Caesar and his life.
A great read.
Translated from German, Christian Meier gives a very interesting and revealing historical and psychological analysis of Julius Caesar and his life.
A great read.
November 11, 2016
I actually only picked this book up lately; it sat for 15 years on the Colleen McCullough bookshelf, along with The First Man in Rome series, which I originally read as they were published in hardback.
I picked up this volume to further inform myself about the subject over which I'd already spent so much time.
I was intrigued, when I finally picked up the book that it read more like a series of essays about Roman lives and times, rather than the episodes in the life of Julius Caesar himself. The environment is so alien to modern day life, the introduction and perspective is necessary. Having read Colleen McCullough's seven volumes (and re-read five), I knew the story itself very well, noticing the holes in Meier's telling that were so significant in McCullough's.
When I arrived at the final two chapters, however, I had acclimated to the structure of the book, and in the midst of the 2016 Presidential campaign, the fall of the Roman republic perfectly mirrored our current situation between the Conservatives on the Republican side and the "party of default" of the People on the Democratic side. Then, the final chapter perfectly summed up the Democratic candidate, their situation being eerily similar - she was Caesar, without the talent; or maybe she had the talent but her own character flaws betrayed her, which is mighty close to Meier's appraisal of the assassination of Julius Caesar by those seemingly closest to him ("Et tu, Brute?" - not presented that way in the current volume; that was borrowed from the Master Will himself).
Anyone concerned with contemporary events beyond the headlines might need to review late Republican history to see the parallels to our current situation at the end of the American Empire.
The book itself is part of a 20th/21st century re-appraisal of historical figures that challenges the former hagiography; from "the greatest man of any age" Julius Caesar has become one more man who brought his own destruction on his own head by virtue of his own actions.
However, in order to appreciate the historical re-appraisal, I think it important to be familiar with both the legend of "the greatest man of any age" as well as the details of his actual life and times. This book does an admirable job of presenting both, in a single volume.
The writing, too, is exceptional - literate and readable.
I picked up this volume to further inform myself about the subject over which I'd already spent so much time.
I was intrigued, when I finally picked up the book that it read more like a series of essays about Roman lives and times, rather than the episodes in the life of Julius Caesar himself. The environment is so alien to modern day life, the introduction and perspective is necessary. Having read Colleen McCullough's seven volumes (and re-read five), I knew the story itself very well, noticing the holes in Meier's telling that were so significant in McCullough's.
When I arrived at the final two chapters, however, I had acclimated to the structure of the book, and in the midst of the 2016 Presidential campaign, the fall of the Roman republic perfectly mirrored our current situation between the Conservatives on the Republican side and the "party of default" of the People on the Democratic side. Then, the final chapter perfectly summed up the Democratic candidate, their situation being eerily similar - she was Caesar, without the talent; or maybe she had the talent but her own character flaws betrayed her, which is mighty close to Meier's appraisal of the assassination of Julius Caesar by those seemingly closest to him ("Et tu, Brute?" - not presented that way in the current volume; that was borrowed from the Master Will himself).
Anyone concerned with contemporary events beyond the headlines might need to review late Republican history to see the parallels to our current situation at the end of the American Empire.
The book itself is part of a 20th/21st century re-appraisal of historical figures that challenges the former hagiography; from "the greatest man of any age" Julius Caesar has become one more man who brought his own destruction on his own head by virtue of his own actions.
However, in order to appreciate the historical re-appraisal, I think it important to be familiar with both the legend of "the greatest man of any age" as well as the details of his actual life and times. This book does an admirable job of presenting both, in a single volume.
The writing, too, is exceptional - literate and readable.
July 11, 2014
This was an uneven book. It would pull me in, get interesting, and then fall back into tediousness. Well written, if a bit repetitive. If you're looking for a scintillating read about Caesar and the Romans...well, look elsewhere. This is Caesar the politician, Roman politics, and that's about it.
Read
September 2, 2023The title would have you believe this is an overview of Caesar's life and times. But this is no book for a newcomer to Roman antiquity. Meier presupposes a ton of knowledge, but if you have that knowledge, he goes deeper on the potential thoughts and experiences of the ancients than you typically see.
This isn't a starting point for someone interested in the period , but it is a delight if you're already obsessed.
This isn't a starting point for someone interested in the period , but it is a delight if you're already obsessed.
June 26, 2025
I stopped halfway through. It centered too much on the politics and other players of the era, which is important, but not what I was looking for. For the first 200 pages, Caesar seemed more of a side character than the central figure, and I did not have the patience to wait for him to become the focus of his own biography. I was also bothered by these two sentences: "At the age of fifteen, he lost his father. More important, however, was the fact that a year later he moved to the very centre of Roman society." Not only do I have trouble believing that losing his father wasn't a hugely impactful experience, I would've liked to learn *something* about how it occurred. This author clearly wasn't concerned about that.
April 17, 2015
When informing the Senate of his quick victory at Zela, Caesar used this now famous pithy phrase to mirror the quickness of his victory: “Veni, vidi, vici.” Well, there was nothing “veni, vidi, vici” about my reading of Christian Meier’s “Caesar: A Biography.” That’s not to say I did not appreciate the book; had I not I would never have finished reading it. However, at times I found the repeated psychological interpretations tedious and suspect. It is difficult enough for me to accurately decipher my own psychological motivations, much less those of a contemporary. To claim to be able to accurately assess the psychological motivations of a long-dead individual seems spurious. Overall, though, I’d say Meier’s tome was worth the effort, and I gladly placed it in my bookshelf - right next to my copy of “Rome’s Last Citizen: The Life and Legacy of Cato, Mortal Enemy of Caesar.” Let’s see what THAT does to Caesar’s mental state.
August 23, 2012
One of the first books I read on Roman history. It provides an extremely detailed account of pre-Caesar Rome along with a breakdown of family rivalries leading to Caesar's rise to power. This book is a very good book for experts on Roman history, however, because it tends to bogg the reader down with trivial family facts that beginning readers have a tough time understanding. I was lucky, already having a very broad knowledge of the time period before starting. Provides a sub-par account of Caesar's military campaigns, although a very good account of Caesar's political rivalries during his time in power. Overall, I was impressed, although the language and detail can become a little cumbersome for even experienced Roman history readers.
January 31, 2008
First encountered Meier's Caesar on a reading list at university. A scholarly yet readable account of Caesar's life and times. Look out for chapter 3, which is the best account I've read about the factors contributing to the fall of the Roman Republic.
September 29, 2017
I gave up 100 page through the book! Hard to follow the author.. handed it over to a charity shop!! Author assumes readers knowledge of Roman life style
August 17, 2017
An incredibly in-depth, unbiased, evaluative biography of Julius Cæsar by a (at that time West) German professor of Antiquity. I knew only popular lore of Cæsar beforehand ; this tome provided background, cultural context and as much fact as possible about the life and ventures of Cæsar.
It took 9 months to get through it, and has been a thought-provoking period of time : directly after Donald Trump's election to the US Presidency. There are many similarities between the late Roman Empire and the state of politics and society in the United States today.
I quote : "A society's ability to place its order in a new footing should not be equated simply with its goodwill, its agreement that order is desirable. [...] it must be possible for factions to form within it, not only to represent their own interests, but to question the order itself and produce something new." (page 494)
History is indeed a cycle.
It took 9 months to get through it, and has been a thought-provoking period of time : directly after Donald Trump's election to the US Presidency. There are many similarities between the late Roman Empire and the state of politics and society in the United States today.
I quote : "A society's ability to place its order in a new footing should not be equated simply with its goodwill, its agreement that order is desirable. [...] it must be possible for factions to form within it, not only to represent their own interests, but to question the order itself and produce something new." (page 494)
History is indeed a cycle.
June 1, 2021
I understand that Christian Meier's biography on Julius Caesar is considered one of the best out there. Indeed this book didn't disappoint. However I must warn who know next to nothing about the life of Julius Caesar and want to read this book as an intro. While Merier does explain many Roman concepts such as the Roman Senate structure and Latin terms superbly, it can at times glaze over certain periods of Caesar's life. Ten months on a military campaign will be summarized in a single paragraph. As a military history buff this could get a bit frustrating, but I will not put the blame completely on Meier. As with many periods of Classical Antiquity we have very few surviving sources that scholars can analyze. In regards to the psychology of Caesar, I think that Meier really offers quite an eyeopening account to how and why Julius Caesar acted as he did. While we all know how this story ends, it is fascinating to see how one like Julius Caesar could rise and fall so dramatically.
December 28, 2022
"Caesar: A Biography" is a well-written, engaging and thought-provoking account of the life and career of Gaius Julius Caesar.
What differentiates this book from other accounts is the basic premise that Caesar assessed the reality of the Roman Republic and its institutions in a fundamental way differently than his fellow aristocrats in the Senate: While senators quarrel with each other on all kind of issues, they do not question the basic solidarity of the aristocracy and, despite the various and obvious problems, do not seriously question the Republic and its institutions as the only way to organise and govern the Roman society and its empire. Caesar, for a variety of reasons outlined by the Author, did not share these beliefs and thus disregarded or even despised the institutions of the Republic. This, together with his brilliance and extraordinary drive, made him an outsider in the Roman society who nevertheless accomplished to achieve an exalted and singular position in it. Ultimately it allowed Caesar to open the way for fundamental changes to the Roman society and its political system which shaped the Mediterranean world for hundreds of years to come.
This basic premise guides the narrative which covers Caeasar`s life and career from early youth to his assassination in minute and comprehensive detail. Focus and main interest of the Author is the description of the interactions of Caesar with the Senate and its main exponents, in particular Pompey, Cicero and Cato the Younger. The book is, unlike many other modern accounts, comparatively non-judgemental concerning the actions and motivations of Caesar as well as the other main actors which I definitely consider a positive. As the book is focused on the political interactions it does not cover other aspects (e.g., social or economic developments in the late Republic) in much detail. This also applies to some extent to military matters: Readers who are looking for an in-depth discussion of Caesar`s military campaigns or late Republic military strategy & tactics should consider other options. Some other limitations of the book which may be considered a negative by some readers are worth mentioning: The book does not cover the aftermath of Caesar`s death and the subsequent rise of the Principate of Augustus at all and, as mentioned in other reviews, there is neither a detailed bibliography nor are there specific references to source material.
Overall, this is a highly recommendable read for people who have at least a basic understanding of Caesar and his time and who are interested in a well-thought-out take on why & how Caesar could accomplish what he did and why he continues to be such a fascinating figure of world history.
What differentiates this book from other accounts is the basic premise that Caesar assessed the reality of the Roman Republic and its institutions in a fundamental way differently than his fellow aristocrats in the Senate: While senators quarrel with each other on all kind of issues, they do not question the basic solidarity of the aristocracy and, despite the various and obvious problems, do not seriously question the Republic and its institutions as the only way to organise and govern the Roman society and its empire. Caesar, for a variety of reasons outlined by the Author, did not share these beliefs and thus disregarded or even despised the institutions of the Republic. This, together with his brilliance and extraordinary drive, made him an outsider in the Roman society who nevertheless accomplished to achieve an exalted and singular position in it. Ultimately it allowed Caesar to open the way for fundamental changes to the Roman society and its political system which shaped the Mediterranean world for hundreds of years to come.
This basic premise guides the narrative which covers Caeasar`s life and career from early youth to his assassination in minute and comprehensive detail. Focus and main interest of the Author is the description of the interactions of Caesar with the Senate and its main exponents, in particular Pompey, Cicero and Cato the Younger. The book is, unlike many other modern accounts, comparatively non-judgemental concerning the actions and motivations of Caesar as well as the other main actors which I definitely consider a positive. As the book is focused on the political interactions it does not cover other aspects (e.g., social or economic developments in the late Republic) in much detail. This also applies to some extent to military matters: Readers who are looking for an in-depth discussion of Caesar`s military campaigns or late Republic military strategy & tactics should consider other options. Some other limitations of the book which may be considered a negative by some readers are worth mentioning: The book does not cover the aftermath of Caesar`s death and the subsequent rise of the Principate of Augustus at all and, as mentioned in other reviews, there is neither a detailed bibliography nor are there specific references to source material.
Overall, this is a highly recommendable read for people who have at least a basic understanding of Caesar and his time and who are interested in a well-thought-out take on why & how Caesar could accomplish what he did and why he continues to be such a fascinating figure of world history.
June 8, 2017
I didn't read the complete book, just several large chunks. So take this with a grain of salt.
First the good. Most books I've read on ancient history don't add that much to the original sources. They may be more interesting and readable, but most actual new data is just speculation. This book is different. The author adds a lot of rich detail on the structure of Roman society and politics, and a lot of useful analysis of Caesar's circumstances and motivations. Where many have tried and failed to add this, I found this book to succeed quite remarkably.
I did, though, have several issues with the book. It is not super engaging, and can seem to drag on and on. Also, the author grazes over several events that others dealt with in much greater detail.
Overall though, I found this book to be quite interesting, and a good model for modern analysis of ancient history.
First the good. Most books I've read on ancient history don't add that much to the original sources. They may be more interesting and readable, but most actual new data is just speculation. This book is different. The author adds a lot of rich detail on the structure of Roman society and politics, and a lot of useful analysis of Caesar's circumstances and motivations. Where many have tried and failed to add this, I found this book to succeed quite remarkably.
I did, though, have several issues with the book. It is not super engaging, and can seem to drag on and on. Also, the author grazes over several events that others dealt with in much greater detail.
Overall though, I found this book to be quite interesting, and a good model for modern analysis of ancient history.
October 30, 2022
Very scholarly work that assumes much knowledge of classical history. Mostly interested in analyzing the motives (considered by the author both natural and unique) that drove Caesar's circumstances and decisions while providing less attention to the details of the historical events. The author makes a case that Caesar is remarkably unique and amongst history's greatest persons while also suggesting that someone like him was inevitable and his work could only be completed by the next victor (who happened to be his heir and completely distinguishable in characteristics.) Overall, I enjoyed reading this expert analysis about such an extraordinary historical figure.
December 20, 2019
You can’t go wrong with books of historical figure during the Roman Empire. I highly recommend this book to any historian or fan of history. There’s some parts that read like a history book, but the art of his story telling makes it a more interesting read. You could fly through it especially when it gets into the civil war, Caesar’s campaigns and of course his assassination. You can just fly through it.
May 27, 2020
The book does not just go through the life of Caesar, it explains the environment in which Caesar was brought up (Maurius, Sulla’s dictatorship,etc) that influenced his actions and his world view. The author provides both sides of the conflict (Caesar vs The Republic) and portrays Caesar as a person with both glamour and flaws. The book uses credible sources, both classical and contemporary and clearly states biases/opinions of the author. Highly recommended.
June 3, 2024
This was a very interesting biography but it dealt more with Roman Society and politics than with what Caesar was doing. It had long discussions of what was happening around Caesar with regard to Rome but when he went to war, you received only a quick summary. This is not to say it does not teach us much of what Caesar’s life was like. Doing a Biography of someone that lived so long ago must have been challenging.
All in all I was glad to gain the historical knowledge the book provided.
All in all I was glad to gain the historical knowledge the book provided.
October 28, 2019
This is not an introductory biography of Caesar. It is full of analyse and introspection. The events of his career are presented, but at times in an uneven manner. The analysis continually gushes over Caesar's position as an outsider and the freedom and lack of freedom this provided him. A scholarly work, reasonably accessible but with a few quirks.
April 2, 2020
Excellent overview of the social and political forces that shaped Caesar. Not for the un-initiated. Interestingly, I found it to be the perfect counter balance to Colleen McCullogh's 'First Man in Rome' series. The German translation is somewhat imperfect, but overall, it is a great book.
July 27, 2016
This is a dense book, but also a surprisingly easy read. Meier offers a self-contained biography of Caesar that narrates the life of the man and describes the culture he lived in. In the earlier years of Caesar's life, when we know less about him, Meier provides a broad description of what life was like for young men of that age. He indicates the probable events of these years when we don't have sure evidence of what Caesar was up to.
This book is really much more than a simple biography. This is a history of an era: the end of the Roman Republic. Caesar was one of the key figures that contributed to the end of the Republic, but as the book makes clear, such a collapse can hardly be the work of one man. Many other major figures appear recurrently throughout the book, including Pompey, Cicero, Cato, and Clodius. The first hundred pages or so describe the generations before Caesar's, including the Gracchi and the generals Marius and Sulla. These stories are almost legendary and a key for understanding the late Republic. Meier uses these stories to show how the political structure of the Roman commonwealth became ripe for a figure like Caesar.
I found this book particularly ominous given the current political climate in America. In particular, the end of the book describes a Roman Senate that is so weak in the face of Caesar's authoritarian power that its only defense is to bestow so many honors on the man that he became a target for tyrranicide. Our own executive office has been growing in power since at least the time of Nixon, while our legislature grows increasingly less capable of fulfilling its own basic expectations. There is a quasi-fascist candidate running for President, but even if he loses, our legislature needs a significant change in order to prevent future authoritarian executives. But, as the book shows, Caesar's rise is directly implicated in the legislative reforms pushed through by Sulla. So maybe the precipice is already far above us and receding fast, rather than in front of us.
For all that this book offers, I prefer the historical exposition of the first 200 pages to the historical exegesis of the last 200. This is an odd disconnect in this book between A) the need to recognize the atrocity of Caesar's actions (he did kill and enslave millions after all), B) the desire to point out how he was a product of his historical circumstances (if he didn't do it, someone else would have), and C) the seeming need to point out Caesar's exceptional nature (for which Meier uses the saccharine term "greatness"). Hannah Arendt has described the "banality of evil" which modern fascists induced in their followers, but except for a brief preamble about how Caesar's actions were clearly disatrous for human life and liberty, this book largely turns a blind eye to the banality of evil in Caesar's age. Perhaps that story is the job of a different book, but this book spends so much time on Item C, that its gestures towards Items A and B seem insincere at times.
Once Meier sets the scene and gets to the story of Caesar himself, there are whole chapters spent investigating the motives/intent of various social actors. This is something fun to think about, but so hard to prove. I appreciate that Meier often provides summaries of other scholars' takes on the motives of the actors, particularly because those scholars are monumental figures of their own accord, such as Mommsen, Hofmansthal, Gelzer, and Syme. I was disappointed that the book lacks a serious academic apparatus. There are no endnotes, and there is only a very brief discussion of sources and earlier studies in the afterword. The text itself definitely introduces and engages with many historical sources, but for a book of such scope, the lack of more academic resources is surprising.
I also would have liked more maps, charts, and timelines. The descriptions of battles are rivetting, but were hard to reconstruct in my head without more visual tools. Meier spends a decent amount of time describing Caeesar's generalship, and the book would be more accessible for all if he provided more resources to help suppplement his narrative. There are a few token maps at the front, but they are largely inadequate to the task of following the narrative. I also found myself in desparate need of a chronology of some kind. The text rarely mentions which year it is (although this sometimes appears in the title of chapters), and the vast number of interrelated events occurring across different provinces is hard to track. I often had to flip back several pages to remind myself which year it was and what the order of events was.
This book has been on my list for a while. It is one of the most famous biographies of Caesar, and it will teach you a lot, while also entertaining and stimulating with lively prose. I agree with other reviewers that this book could have been shortened, perhaps even by fifty or a hundred pages, and not lose much of its force. But this is what you should expect from German scholars. The extra time you spend reading this book will reward you.
This book is really much more than a simple biography. This is a history of an era: the end of the Roman Republic. Caesar was one of the key figures that contributed to the end of the Republic, but as the book makes clear, such a collapse can hardly be the work of one man. Many other major figures appear recurrently throughout the book, including Pompey, Cicero, Cato, and Clodius. The first hundred pages or so describe the generations before Caesar's, including the Gracchi and the generals Marius and Sulla. These stories are almost legendary and a key for understanding the late Republic. Meier uses these stories to show how the political structure of the Roman commonwealth became ripe for a figure like Caesar.
I found this book particularly ominous given the current political climate in America. In particular, the end of the book describes a Roman Senate that is so weak in the face of Caesar's authoritarian power that its only defense is to bestow so many honors on the man that he became a target for tyrranicide. Our own executive office has been growing in power since at least the time of Nixon, while our legislature grows increasingly less capable of fulfilling its own basic expectations. There is a quasi-fascist candidate running for President, but even if he loses, our legislature needs a significant change in order to prevent future authoritarian executives. But, as the book shows, Caesar's rise is directly implicated in the legislative reforms pushed through by Sulla. So maybe the precipice is already far above us and receding fast, rather than in front of us.
For all that this book offers, I prefer the historical exposition of the first 200 pages to the historical exegesis of the last 200. This is an odd disconnect in this book between A) the need to recognize the atrocity of Caesar's actions (he did kill and enslave millions after all), B) the desire to point out how he was a product of his historical circumstances (if he didn't do it, someone else would have), and C) the seeming need to point out Caesar's exceptional nature (for which Meier uses the saccharine term "greatness"). Hannah Arendt has described the "banality of evil" which modern fascists induced in their followers, but except for a brief preamble about how Caesar's actions were clearly disatrous for human life and liberty, this book largely turns a blind eye to the banality of evil in Caesar's age. Perhaps that story is the job of a different book, but this book spends so much time on Item C, that its gestures towards Items A and B seem insincere at times.
Once Meier sets the scene and gets to the story of Caesar himself, there are whole chapters spent investigating the motives/intent of various social actors. This is something fun to think about, but so hard to prove. I appreciate that Meier often provides summaries of other scholars' takes on the motives of the actors, particularly because those scholars are monumental figures of their own accord, such as Mommsen, Hofmansthal, Gelzer, and Syme. I was disappointed that the book lacks a serious academic apparatus. There are no endnotes, and there is only a very brief discussion of sources and earlier studies in the afterword. The text itself definitely introduces and engages with many historical sources, but for a book of such scope, the lack of more academic resources is surprising.
I also would have liked more maps, charts, and timelines. The descriptions of battles are rivetting, but were hard to reconstruct in my head without more visual tools. Meier spends a decent amount of time describing Caeesar's generalship, and the book would be more accessible for all if he provided more resources to help suppplement his narrative. There are a few token maps at the front, but they are largely inadequate to the task of following the narrative. I also found myself in desparate need of a chronology of some kind. The text rarely mentions which year it is (although this sometimes appears in the title of chapters), and the vast number of interrelated events occurring across different provinces is hard to track. I often had to flip back several pages to remind myself which year it was and what the order of events was.
This book has been on my list for a while. It is one of the most famous biographies of Caesar, and it will teach you a lot, while also entertaining and stimulating with lively prose. I agree with other reviewers that this book could have been shortened, perhaps even by fifty or a hundred pages, and not lose much of its force. But this is what you should expect from German scholars. The extra time you spend reading this book will reward you.
July 17, 2017
Caeser was the man.
December 5, 2017
Nice book I think, but read too long ago to really remember.
May 5, 2020
Great psychological insight into Julius Caesar of flesh & blood
May 8, 2020
A standard biography of Caesar that covers his life from birth to death on the ides of March. This work does require a background knowledge of the time period to fully appreciate.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews