Rating: 
Summary: A spectacular book
Review: Amazingly well written and easily readable personal account of the war in Gaul by Caesar himself. Caesar would write these memoirs each year at the end of the Campaign season when in his Winter camp and they have an enormous level of detail. For example, during his first campaign season there is a very detailed account of how the Celts/Gauls built their city walls that made me feel like running out and building a minature reproduction with Lincoln Logs, stones and dirt in the back yard (my wife would have loved that). Clearly, Caesar is recording this for future Roman armies so they know how the Gallic walls are built and how they can be destroyed. At one of the first cities in Gaul that Caesar lays siege to, the defenders gather on the walls and call the Romans names and throw things down at them, reminiscent of a scene from a Monty Python movie where a Gallic defender hurls epithets and other objects down at soldiers in front of a castle. However, when Caesar's troops begin to slowly wheel a massive, multi-story siege engine out of the woods and up to the walls, the occupants throw open their gates, run out, and surrender without a fight. The Romans usually faced lopsided odds in their battles and were frequently outnumbered 3:1. They overcame these odds by the incredible disipline and physical conditioning of the Roman troops who would march up to 50 miles per day with armor and weapons. The battles would usually be lost by the first side whose men panicked and fled the field. Caesar's accounts of battle give you an idea of how critically important discipline and physical strength and conditioning were to the military success of Rome. There are also hints at the possible causes of the later downfall of Rome to the Germanic invasions since Caesar is clearly impressed by the Germanic tribes ability to fight and their physical size and strength. However, it is also clear that Caesar was a great general and would choose the location of his battles very carefully. In multiple instances Caesar retreats to a more favorable location before offering battle. With the better Gallic generals, this would lead to a game of cat and mouse to see who would pick the terrain and therefore fight from a position of advantage. In nearly all instances, Caesar was able to fight on his terms through his own patience and discipline as well as that of his troops. All in all, this is a fascinating historical account that really comes alive and one which I have gone back to several times to re-read.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent, full of action and adventure.
Review: As soon as I turned the first pages of the book, I was hooked. The true life account of one of the greatest generals in the history of warfare was in my hands, what else could I do but read it from cover to cover with only the briefest of breaks. Within the pages are so many interesting accounts of actions and battles that one can't help but be drawn into a world over 2,000 years old. From the first invasions of Gaul to the final battle with Pompei, this is one book that any Rome buff MUST have in his/her library.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent narrative, thorough as the man himself
Review: 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 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.
Rating:
Summary: Well written historical book!!!
Review: Even though this book was used as propaganda, it still gives a look at what life in Gaul. It has great description of battle of the Roman and opposing armies. It also has a good deal of why events happened in the order that they did. It also gives an incite to the political doings of the Roman republic near its end. A must read book for anybody interested in ancient history!
Rating:
Summary: a great selfish man.
Review: He was a great man,but his personal success based on the fall of Roman Repulic, a dreaming model for weak nation to be a great power.
Rating:
Summary: Hail Caesar!!!
Review: I absolutely enjoyed reading this 2000 year old play by play campaign account of Caesar and his conquering legions in Gaul. The text is anything but boring which you might expect from your experience with latin readings from highschool. It has intrigue, treachery, fighting and spectacular engineering feats of a modern war novel. Caesar relays all of this in the most non-chalant manner as if there was little effort involved. From building a bridge across the Rhine in 20 days to the 14 to 10 mile line long seige fortification at Alesia, it testified to the awesome capabilities of the Roman army in addition to it's fighting prowess. We also see Caesar at his best: when the situation turn to mush (sometimes due to his own lack of forsight) Caesar would not only prevent disaster but frequently completely reverses it and turns it into a victory. One wonders how history would have unfolded if Caesar had been destroyed with his legions at the Sabine River by the Nervii....
However, part of the attraction to the book is also because Caesar wrote it to be a great propaganda piece for himself. Those Roman historians out there know better not to take Caesar's word on everything point and try to read between the lines. After all Ceasar conquest of Gaul was stepping stone in his grand plan to achieve absolute power over Rome (not that Pompey was slacking either) which explains why Caesar had to achive a decesive victory in Gaul at any cost.
As military history text it is one of the better ones of its time because of its attention to detail (terrain, weapons, tactics and logistics) and Caesar's habit of being present in most of the battles. There are some general maps of the important regions in appendix but it is lacking in tactical diagrams and one as has rely on the text to get a picture of the fighting. For more detailed analysis of the military aspects of Caesar's career and better situation and tactical maps I would recommend T. A. Dodge's "Caesar". However, the latter is not a light read and not recommended for beginners in ancient history.
Rating:
Summary: Good read and interestingly translated.
Review: I have read the present classic book with great pleasure, but I nevertheless have had some feelings of not being completely satisfied with the editing. I happen to possess the complete translation of Ceasar's "Gallic War" published by an imprint of Harvard University Press and it occurred to me that in the present book several seemingly irrelevant passages have been left out. And this strikes me personally as somewhat irritating. Of course, when one does not know the difference one probably won't mind at all, but I thought it might be useful to people out there who are in the moment of deciding whether or not to by the present book to know that it is not the complete version, and should they wish to come into the possession of this complete one they should rather purchase Harvard's "Gallic War". I am not trying to downgrade the present book, but it's just a matter of wishing to own a complete version of the work or not minding at all about such trivial things.
Rating:
Summary: ROME ROME ROME
Review: If you can get past that the book was, at least in part, a piece of political propaganda for Ceasar you will be able to enjoy the experience of hearing Ceasar in his own words.
Rating:
Summary: Who knew he could write?
Review: In the most compact and vigorous prose the Latin toungue had up till then seen, the future 'Dictator Perpetuo' reveals himself through his 'commentaries' (which were designed as propaganda to defend his action's against his enemies) as a no non-sense leader of men, and a general of genius. On a review of his life one is taken aback that one man could have had such drive and energy to divide between civic reforms, military campaigns, and a host of other activities which brought him fame and renown through out the entire Roman world; when at the same time he could with ease write masterworks of classical literature the vividness and potency of which still stun us. One will especially enjoy his depiction of the building of the siege works at Alesia, and the final defeat of Vercingetorix. A pleasure.
Rating:
Summary: Caesar Speaks
Review: It's fantastic to think that Caesar's words have passed to us virtually unchanged through 2000 years. A true glimpse into the events and strategies of the Gallic wars. Highly recommended for lovers of history in general and Roman history in particular.
|
