The Battle for Gaul

Though it is a translation, this is a very compelling account by Julius Caesar of the Gallic Wars. In general, Caesar wrote very lucidly of his pacification and controlling of the many Gallic tribes. His tactics and attention to detail surely must still be studied by the military schools of the world. Best of all for me, it was not the least bit dull, but rather exciting!

This is a remarkable document. It is at once a manual on military strategy, on effective management of his troops, and on the psychology of the enemy. But it is also a history, with smatterings of anthropology, sometimes our only source on a vanished pre-Roman way of life in what became France. Finally, and most difficult to grasp, there is a political subtext, in which Caesar is communicating with both allies and rivals in Rome, advancing his career while advising future leaders on proper conduct. Why did he mention certain things? What did he omit? What political image (or self-consciously enduring myth) was he creating for himself? There are few antique documents as fascinating and to boot it is a literary masterpiece of clear exposition and rapidly moving narrative. Once you read it - and it must be read carefully and with references to other sources - you will have no doubt that Caesar was one of the greatest leaders of all time: afterall, his name is the basis for Tzar as well as Kaiser! Then there are the details. What stick out in my mind are individual tales of bravery as well as foolishness, rendered in detail as vivid as a novel, and the ever-present possibility of failure or even disaster from which Caesar always manages to pull victory at the decisive moment; of course, there are the many instances of brutality in a time of different standards of military conduct. Then there is the siege of Alesia. To protect his troops and starve out the enemy (and the charismatic Gaul, Vercingetorix), Caesar at Alesia had in a matter of days not only to build a surrounding rampart facing in, but also one facing outwards (14 miles in curcumference!), to ward off the last-stand of the bravest of the Gauls. Finally, to break the spirit of small revolts after Alesia, Caesar cut off the hands of all the Bellevoci who took up arms in a desperate, last gambit that Caesar feared would repeat itself in innumerable city-tribes as his consulship ended. It worked. And there are many characters who figure later in the great civil wars that destroyed the last remnant of the Republic: Brutus, Labienus, Mark Antony, and Cicero's brother Quintus Tullius. You get glimpses of them as men as well as military leaders who later opposed Caesar. As with much in Classical Civilization, the more you know the more you love it. And the more this period of diversity looks like a metaphor, or example, for the present. There is a good reason why the educations of scholars in the humanities (as well as in the sicneces) and diplomates began with the Classical era - read this and see how relevant it still is, in light of the War in Irak. This is one of the most important documents from the period. Warmly recommended. If you are predispoosed, it will influence the way you think of contemporary events.

Julius Caesar was one of the truly pivotal people in recorded history. Most non-historians know him as the one who was stabbed by Brutus on the Ides of March. It is almost as if Caesar sprang full-grown to grab the reigns of power from the Senate in Rome. Yet Caesar had a fairly long life before he became First Citizen of Rome. He was a successful general and a talented historian who saw world events with the dispassionate eye of one who felt supremely confident that his tenure as an army general was but the last stop before his ascension to ultimate power. In his CONQUEST OF GAUL, Caesar uses the third person point of view to punctuate his tacit assumption that unfolding events ought to be divorced as far as possible from the one witnessing them. This writing technique also served to symbolize his stated goal: to conquer Gaul. To him, Gaul was a land of barbarian tribes, with each possessing formidable numbers and fierce fighters. These tribes and their leaders were enormously emotional, wildly unpredictable, and more dangerous as individuals than as organized units. Caesar knew that to beat them, he could not be as them. They were emotional, he coldly calculating. They were not efficient in massed groups, his legions had to be. Caesar was the ultimate practitioner of the divide and conquer school. He picked off his enemies one at a time, like bobbing heads on a shooting gallery. The Atuatucii, the Nervii, the Helvetians all fought ferociously, sometimes winning minor victories, but it was Caesar who won the ones that counted. He transformed his legions into extensions of his personality. They fought well as masses against overwhelming odds, not for their pay, or hope of plunder, or even for glory, but for their commander. Caesar's iron will and resolve filled his legions with hope and his enemies with despair. It was only when Caesar was recalled to Rome that the Gauls decided that now was the time to seek a new leader to strike down the Roman eagle. During this battle against Vercingetorix and his earlier ones against lesser chiefs, Caesar sees each battle as the logical working out of a master plan, that when combined with the bravery and training of his troops in co-ordinated combat, could crush a loud but awkward foe. As he writes, one can visualize his intended audience, not the reader of this review, but the purple-robed senators back in Rome sweating out the increasing victories of a man who seemed fated to return to the Capitol to tell them their business. His calmness in battle was matched only by his calmness with a stylus. It is truly ironic that it was this same calm that led him to discount the excited warnings of a Mark Antony, who tried to tell Caesar of plotters, that led to his downfall.

Julius Caesar's dramatic commentary on the Gallic campaigns is an extremely riveting account of a man whose brilliance has yet to be eclipsed by any other political or military leader. As a work of military history, Ceasars campaign style combines exciting strategic and tactical views that led him and his legions to excel in pivotal battles against armies 2 and 3 times thier size. In addition, Ceaser shows his diplomatic knack, with detailed descriptions of his negotiations with the Gallic leaders. A read which is well worth it, in either the original Latin or as a translation.

Caesar has always been a hero to me, not the power driven, egotistical monster that many see him as today. You cannot judge him by today's standard but only by the standards of his time. If there had been no Caesar (or Alexander), our world would be quite different today. It amazes me that I can read the words of the man himself. The Gallic Wars is truely a gem for anyone interested in Caesar or the Roman Republic. You feel as though you have insight into his special genius.