The Conquest of Gaul (Classics) [Paperback]

As a great fan of Caesar, I loved this. It's surprisingly enthralling once you get into it, but takes a bit of work to start, especially if you're not familiar with the setting and political background.

Originally written as a series of despatches to the Senate back in Rome, it is undoubtedly propaganda created by Caesar to justify his own conquests, and make sly digs at his enemies back in Rome.

Starting with his departure from Rome in 58bc after his consulship, this takes in the battles against the rebellion under Vercongetorix as well as the abortive first invasion of Britain.

It might not be to everyone's taste, but I think Caesar's an elegant and lucid writer who uses understatement as a style factor.

The Penguin volume is excellent, with an easy, free-flowing translations, an introduction outlining the background, a glossary of people and terms, and maps of Gaul. Altogether, a bargain.

I really enjoyed this translation of Julius Caesar's account of his wars against the Gauls a lot more than the original Latin version. Maybe it's because I'm more comfortable with English than Latin..... Room for improvement: I would have liked a few more explanatory notes here and there and maybe a couple of maps of the areas of the campaigns.

Caesar's Commentaries as they were suposed to be seen contrast markedly with say the "Histories" of Tacitus. How strong is this constrast, well we will see. But first, Caesar's Gallic wars covers his years as Consul and the gradual conquest of the lands known today as France, Belgium, Holland and the western parts of Germany. The book itself never mentions any of the political infighting taking place both in the Senate itself and among the enemies and friends of Caesar. Many things stand out in the history itself such as Caesar's advanced age before he started his conquests, given his birth in 100 BC and the start of the Gallic consulship in 58 BC Caesar was aready 42 years old. Interesting as well, is Caesar's insistence on the use of the third person to comment on the subsequent wars, and then even more surprising the change to first person in a very few instances to make a point. No doubt this is a device often invoked at the time to try to ensure impartiality or some fashionable way of writing. Certainly these commentaries were intended to be read by military and senatorial leaders on the way to wage war in Gaul and for that matter maybe even in Germany.

Now we come to the fascinating contrasts with Tacitus's "Histories" for example. Somehow, in the intervening time between the conquests of Caesar and the year of the four emperors, about 100 years, much had changed. Not only in the style of writing itself but in the way both Roman and foreign society was envisaged in Roman eyes. Nowhere except in a very few occasions did Caesar mention that his men needed encouragement for the fight, or lacked bravery. But then in Caesar's day the men were indebted to him to ensure both pay and security, Caesar or one of his generals having recruited them himself and being levied only for a number of years rather than the long term service required from a certain date onward (possibly Augustus's time). We see again and again the expressions of bravery and courage witnessed by Caesar of his own men in action and the determination requiring incredible effort to construct siege engines or wait out a siege, or for that matter the persistance by the armies involved in continuing the struggle to conquer territory when there was no real incentive to do so apart from honour in war and the gratitude of their general.

First came the invasion of northern Italy into Cisalpine Gaul where the Helvetii, an Alpine tribe, planned a migration into other parts directly imposing themselves on client tribes under Rome's protection and north Italy itself, a situation not tolerated. From there, after their defeat, Caesar continued into Gaul ostensibly to help other tribes against Germanic invaders originally called to help in domestic disputes between Gaulish tribes. In this way Caesar gradually eliminated tribe after tribe in clever tactics designed to disrupt the banding together of the whole of Gaul against him. Obtain hostages and promises from one and nove onto the next, fight a decisive battle usually against odds such as 2-3 or even 5 to 1, defeat them and punish whatever was seen wrong in Roman eyes, establish Roman control and so the law and get Caesar as judge over disputes and Bob's your uncle, one conquered country. Caesar was not only a brilliant commander and very clever man but also excellent at getting his men to trust and love him, as well, he knew how to plan and carry out a campaign, taking risks when necessary, all in all a natural talent.

He writes fluently with litte influence of personal detail but rather in an entertaining style easily captivated by. But the book is a commentary and intended as such, this must be remembered.

Throughout, we see the vast difference in the times of Caesar and say Nero; in Caesar's time the eagerness and devotion and determination as well as courage of the Roman army could not be faulted, nowhere do we see cowardice in play, his men running or being frightened by the Germans with their reputation for ferocity and toughness. The confidence of the army grows as victory builds on victory.

Unfortunately, very little is said of military tactics in the battle itself or the troop movements or how commands are given or how men are relieved with fresh troops in close combat fighting in multiple lines, this has remained a mystery but nonethelss a known ability which would have required astonishing discipline and bravery. On the other hand we see in Tacitus's day that corruption and fear and cowardice are ripe, everywhere one looks such a decline is obvious, where did the vital, proud and brave army go, or for that matter the people themselves. What a difference 100 years make and maybe a couple of defeats as well, such as the Varus disaster which basically ended a conquest of Germany, the one enemy, even more than the Parthians which were implacable and undefeated watching and waiting in the background for a hint of weakness. It is also seen how the way Romans saw foreigners changed significantly in this time, in Caesar's time they were simply barbarians and non-Romans, in Tacitus's time after decades of service in the army and long trade and contact they came to be seen in a new light more human and less barbarian. The Roman himself less stoic under pressure and more prone to weakness. Why did this happen? Not simple questions if indeed it is true.

An excellent narrative unsentimental and thorough as the man himself.