A MAN WITHOUT AN EQUAL

A review of Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus (2006)

(Rating 5 of 5)

In the over two thousand years since Julius Caesar was assassinated, many authors have written books about the great general and statesman trying to understand him. Was he a hero or tyrant? A visionary or a just a practical politician? Caesar is a hard man to nail down despite being one the most written about men in ll history. However, I feel I can say with absolute confidence that Adrian Goldsworthy has truly captured the essence of Caesar and has succeeded in writing in—what I feel—is the book on Julius Caesar for the twenty-first century. If you want to know about just who Julius Caesar was then this is the only book on him that you will ever really need. You do not have to be a history buff to both understand and enjoy this book*, Goldsworthy writes a smooth narrative that is devoid of any technical history jargon that usually infests most historical works.

Julius Caesar did a great deal in his fifty-six years on this Earth. Goldsworthy covers his childhood, his time aboard, and his political rise. Throughout the book, Goldsworthy avoids any trace of presentism and also continuously reminds the reader to avoid using hindsight to come to conclusions about events. He also is carefully not to judge one side in a conflict more harshly than the other and does his best to maintain a historian’s impartial distance.

“Roman rule brought to Gaul and other provinces many advantages. At a most basic level it is not unreasonable to say that more people were better off living under the Roman Empire than they were before it came or after it failed. The faults of Roman society—and there were many—were often shared by other cultures including the Gauls. Slavery is an obvious example. The violent entertainments of the arena, which came alongside literature, art and drama as part of Rome's influence, were less usual. Caesar was not responsible for Roman imperialism or for Roman culture, although he was certainly an enthusiastic agent of the Republic's expansion. His conquest of Gaul was not a fulfillment of a long-term aim or ambition, in any sense other than that he had long craved the chance to win glory. It was chance and opportunity that led to him focusing his attention on Gaul.”(p.354-5)

(Caesar accepts Vercingetorix's surrender)

“The benefits of Roman rule are arguable but the grim nature of Roman conquest is not. Caesar was entirely pragmatic—effectively amoral—in his use of clemency or massacre and atrocity. During the course of the conquest of Gaul his soldiers did terrible things, sometimes by order, as when they massacred the Usipetes and Tencteri, and occasionally spontaneously, as when they slaughtered women and children at Avaricum. Other Roman armies under other commanders had done similar things in past and would continue to do so in the future. Indeed atrocities as bad, or even worse, were committed by virtually all armies in the ancient world. This is not to justify what Caesar did, merely to place it into context. Warfare in antiquity was generally an extremely cruel business.”(p.355)

After Caesar's conquest of Gaul he comes home to find his enemies have backed him into a corner. He can either back down in humiliating defeat or do what other disgruntled Roman generals had done since he himself was a boy: invade Rome. The Roman Civil War has become a romanticized period of history. Much like World War II, the Roman Civil War is given a story-like narrative filled with the colorful figures of the age. The power struggle between two of Rome's greatest leaders and their allies locked in a bitter conflict where there can only be one winner.

“The greatest battle of the war, fought by armies commanded by the ablest generals of the age, was about to occur and inevitably sources recounted the great omens that foreshadowed this massive shift in fortune.” (p.425)

For this book does not just feature Caesar. During his life Caesar encountered incredible people. He was the nephew of the great Maris, the son-in-law of Cinna, and he stood up to Sulla when no one else would. Among his colleges during his career were allies such as Crassus, enemies like Cato, friends such as Cicero, and the most intriguing of all Pompey the Great. Caesar and Pompey were two great friends who would become the greatest of rivals. However his most famous encounter is with the great Queen of Egypt.


(Caesar meets Cleopatra)

“When Caesar arrived in Egypt Cleopatra was nearly twenty-one years old and had been queen for almost four years. She was highly intelligent and extremely well educated in the Greek tradition. Later, she would be credited with writing books on a very broad range of subjects. Cleopatra was a noted linguist who it was claimed rarely needed an interpreter when conversing with the leaders of neighboring countries.” (p.438)

One of the insights Goldsworthy makes that I find the most fascinating, is he compares Caesar's two great errors: miscalculating the mood of the Gallic aristocracy and miscalculating the mood of the Roman aristocracy to be, in fact, the same error. In both cases he felt that since his rule was good and benevolent that those who had opposed him would come to his side. In Gaul, he managed to prevail and conquer but in Rome he lost his life.





Death of Caesar

“Caesar tried to change this. In 49 BC he feared falling into the hands of his rivals, just as they were terrified of his returning at the head of an army. In each case the fears may have been ungrounded, but that did not make them any less real. Once the war began Casear paraded his clemency, sparing defeated enemies and in time allowing them to resume their careers. This was calculated policy, intended to win over uncertain and deter the enemy from fighting to the death, but that does not reduce the contrast with his opponents or earlier victors. After he had won, the pardoned Pompeians were allowed back into public life and some treated very well indeed. Once again he clearly felt that this was more likely to persuade them and others to accept his dictatorship. Regardless of his motives, there was a generosity about Caesar's behavior that was matched by no other Roman who came to power in similar circumstances. In the same way, while his lifelong backing for popular causes was intended to win support, at the same time he did implement a number of measures that were in the interest of a wide part of the population.” (p.515)

Goldsworthy is right to title this book the life of a Colossus because that is what Caesar was. His life and legacy left a huge impact on the world that very few historical figures can compare. His legacy still looms large even today for both myself and my county celebrates our birthdays (July 3 and 4) in the month that bears his name.

*Although you probably are a history buff if you are going to read this. After all, who else is going to read an over five hundred page book about Julius Caesar?

{Video is from the already classic HBO series Rome, to which the author was a consultant}

THE DIE IS CAST

A review of Julius Caesar’s The Civil War (40s B.C.?)
Translated by Jane F. Gardner (1967 A.D.)

(Rating: 5 of 5)

History is written by the winners. In this case it is truer then most, however, I do not believe one should naturally discount it for that reason, but it does need to be mentioned. With that said, this second famous work by Julius Caesar is a remarkable read. It is great political document where Caesar not only reports on the events that happened but also presents his case to why his cause should prevail. The war was caused by a political situation that had boiling for years and was now going to boil over the cause of Caesar and the populares and the optimates now being championed by Caesar’s former friend and ally, Gnaeus Pompeius, also known as Pompey the Great.

Caesar had just wrapped up his campaign in Gaul, and was fast becoming the most popular man in Rome. Caesar wanted to be the consul again but his enemies would not have it. The optimates demanded that Caesar resign his pro-consulship of Gaul and retire. Caesar agreed to resign his command and disband his army only if the Pompey agreed to do the same. The Senate refused, supported Pompey’s time as sole consul, and approved his pro-consulship of the Spanish provinces. Caesar feeling boxed in crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome proclaiming ‘the die is cast.’

“However for the sake of Rome I bore this loss of privilege with a good grace. When I wrote to the Senate suggesting a general demobilization, I was not allowed even that. Troops are being raised all over Italy, my two legions, which were taken from me on the pretext of a Parthian campaign, are being retained, and the whole State is in arms. What is the aim of all these preparations but my destruction?” p.40

Ancient warfare was extremely brutal and by modern day standards would be consider criminal. In this respect Caesar was no different than any other, in fact, considering his success as general, who could argued to be the most brutal. Decided to try something different, he offered clemency to those who had fought against him and took no action to those who had chosen to remain neutral. This helped him win over the population that he was now going to rule.

“Their departure left the soldiers free to fraternize. There was a general exodus from the Pompeian camp; the men began asking after personal friends and fellow-townsmen in Caesar’s camp, and called them out. Firstly, they all expressed their thanks to all of our men for having spared them the day before, when they were utterly terror-stricken. ‘We owe our lives to you,’ they said. They then asked weather Caesar could be trusted, and whether they would be right to put themselves in his hands; they expressed regret for not having done so in the first place and having joined battle with their own friends and kinsmen.” p.72

Like his book on the Gallic War, Caesar likes to quote dialogues that there was no way he could have been privy to. Granted, later defectors could have given him such information but it is still very unlikely that he could have known what they would have said word for word. It is also interesting the Caesar, of course, keeps out the famous Egyptian queen, Cleopatra. It is said that he did not later chapters such as the Alexandrian War and the African War, but I could not see any differences when I was reading them.

“If at any time Pompey acted with particular slowness or deliberation, they would say that the business need keep them only a single day, and that Pompey took pleasure from being in command and was treating ex-consuls and ex-praetors as if they were his slaves. They were already starting to squabble openly among themselves about rewards and priesthoods and were assigning the consul ships for years to come, while some were claiming houses and property of those in Caesar’s camp.” p.148

I highly enjoyed this book and I recommend it to anyone interested in the time period, I would also recommend Adrian Goldsworthy small work Caesar’s Civil War as a reference guide while reading.

{Video is from the all ready classic HBO series Rome}

TARGET: GAUL

A Review of Julius Caesar’s The Conquest of Gaul
Published as series (50s-44 BC)
Translated by S.A. Handford (1951 AD)
Revised and edited by Jane F. Gardner (1982 AD)

(Rating 5 of 5)

In 387 B.C., Rome suffered the worst defeat in its history by that point. Brennus of the Senones, a people from Gaul, laid waste to the army of Rome and entered the city. The Gauls looted and devastated the city and they would not leave until the Romans bought them off. The defeat had damaged the Roman psyche, before Rome would only go to war if for a just cause like self-defense. After this attack, their view of self-defense would take on a completely new dimension: preemptive attacks—to use a modern phrase—would be the new norm. Centuries later, Rome had fought Gallic tribes quite a few times, with much better results, but the bitter historical memories remained. Julius Caesar was going to do what no Roman had before him dared to do: take the fight to the heart of Gaul itself. Centuries after their greatest humiliation, it was now payback time.

Julius Caesar would not just invade and conquer all the tribes of Gaul he would write down the accomplishments of himself and his army. This work* would be would be written so the people of Rome could read it and appreciate what he was doing. His allies, his fellow triumvirs, and adversaries, such as Cato and Scipio, would read it. Caesar’s work would continue to be read long after the civilization that lived in and served would crumble and send Europe into the Middle Ages. For centuries, Caesar’s work was often used in Latin classes all across the world so students could practice their understanding of Latin by translating the work into their native language.

“Gaul comprises three areas, inhabited respectively by the Belgae, the Aquitani, and a people who call themselves Celts, though we call them Gauls. All of these have a different languages, customs, and laws. The Celts are separated from the Aquitani by the river Garonne, from the Belgae by the Marne and Seine. The Belgae are the bravest of the three peoples, being the farthest removed from the highly developed civilization of the Roman Province, least often visited by merchants with enervating luxuries for sale, and nearest to the Germans across the Rhine, with whom they are continually at war. For the same reason the Helvetii are braver than the rest of the Celts; they are in an almost daily conflict with the Germans, either trying to keep them out of Switzerland or themselves invading Germany. The region occupied by the Celts, which has one frontier facing north, is bounded by the Rhone, the Garonne, the Atlantic Ocean, and the country of the Belgae; the part of it inhabited by the Sequani and the Helvetii also touches the Rhine. The Belgic territory, facing north and east, runs the northern frontier of the Celts to the lower Rhine. Aquitania is bounded by the Garonne, the Pyremees, and the part of the Atlantic coast nearest Spain; it faces north-west” p.28

When reading Caesar myself their were a couple of things I soon discovered. The first thing I first noticed was that Caesar likes to write about himself in the third person. This makes me wonder, of course, if he actually talked liked that. I have read that he had, but have never been able to really confirm it. The second thing I discover is my own understanding of military matters is much like my understanding of chess: I know how all the pieces move but I do not understand strategy and if someone tries to talk ‘chess’ to me I will not understand what they mean. I do however find the political element that Caesar discusses to be extremely fascinating and there is quite a bit of it.

“Caesar perceived that Liscus’ remarks alluded to Diviciacus’ brother Dumnorix, and as he did not want the matter discussed with a number of others present, he promptly dismissed the assembly, telling Liscus to stay behind. When they were alone he questioned him about what he had said in the meeting, and Liscus now spoke with greater freedom and confidence. On putting the same questions to others in private, Caesar found that his report was true. It was indeed Dumnorix that he had referred to, a man of boundless daring, extremely popular with the masses on account of his liberality, and an ardent revolutionary.” p.36

Although I strongly believe in the above quote's meeting to be as Caesar describes it, it may have had a different spin from Liscus’ perspective, there is always the question of how much of the work is fact and how much is propaganda. History is written by the winners—literally, in this case—so one needs to try to pull away from the text and try to put some context to what he or she is reading. We know that Caesar does tell some tall tales about some funny animals, he also tends to quote people from meetings, which he was never in, and all the participants might be dead. My old history professor*** once explained to our class that in the ancient world it was permitted to quote someone using your words as theirs. That so long as you ‘knew his character’ it would be generally accepted as fact. The scene at Alesia, is described by Caesar, and includes a dialogue of Vercingetorix with the other top leaders in Alesia describing how they will exile all those who cannot fight—women, children, and old people—and hope the Romans take them in. Yet, a lot of Caesar says about this battle was later confirmed by archeological digs that were funded by Napoleon III. In addition, we know from the letters of Cicero that he was in contact with his brother at the time, which leaves us to conclude the Senate had some eye to what was going on there. Since the officers of Caesar’s army were from prominent political families and some of them were opposed to Caesar politically, I think we can safely assume that if Caesar completely made up major points then he would have most likely have been caught and exposed.


I have to admit there is a certain excitement I got from reading this book. Knowing that I was reading the actually words and thoughts that Julius Caesar put down thousands of years before I was ever born** was fascinating experience unto itself. I strongly recommend this work to anyone interested in the world of ancient antiquity. I would also recommend with this book to read Kate Gilliver’s work with it as a guide, for the maps and details are quite helpful in helping one understand the story Caesar is telling.


*His friend, Aulus Hirtius, writes the last book after Caesar’s death.

**Alternatively, to put a stronger point on it, over thousand seven hundred years before my nation was born.

***In the top photo he is the left man in the back, his photo and information is the second individual photo on top.

{Video taken from the already classic HBO series Rome}

CLASSIC CONFLICT

A review of Adrian Goldsworthy’s Caesar’s Civil War: 49-44 B.C. (2002)
Part of the Essential Histories series #42

(Rating:5 of 5)

Ever since the event happened, the conflict of the Roman Civil War had been told and retold. It is a conflict full of colorful characters and concepts. Caesar himself gave his own interpretation, as would other historians, artists, poets, and writers. One of the world’s leading experts on Rome, Adrian Goldsworthy, sums it all up in this little over ninety page work. This is a colossal tale that took place in a colossal time.

Goldsworthy’s work begins with a brief summery of what the Roman Empire had been through up until that time. He talks how the building of an empire put so much strain on the Republic that the institutions were in a state of decay and no longer provided much benefit to the average citizen either in home or in the provinces. By page 20, however we get to the actual conflict that creates one of the most famous Civil Wars in the history of the world. Caesar and Pompey, two old friends, allies, in-laws and two of the greatest military heroes in Roman history go head to head for the fate of the city and civilization that both that had devoted their lives.

“The suddenness of Caesar’s advance surprised and unnerved his opponents, just as he had intended. Pompey had left Rome in the second half of January, declaring that it could not be defended. He was followed by most of the magistrates, including the consuls, who left in such haste it suggested panic. Many Romans were still uncertain about just how firmly committed each side was to fighting, and this open admission of military weakness made many wonder whether Pompey could really be relied on to defend the Republic.” p.31

Like the other to books I reviewed in this series, the work has a textbook format with out having a textbook feel. While most textbooks are dry and devoid of real substance this work is full of life trying to describe a single—although highly significant—historical event. This work not only Goldsworthy’s extraordinary writing but also there are maps, detail analysis of battles, chapters devoted to both the military and civilians in this time period. For example, ‘Portrait of a Civilian’ covers Cicero, the greatest orator of his time. The book also takes a close look at Caesar’s centurions describing what the war was like for them. There is also at the end an overall historical analysis view of Julius Caesar’s career, overall legacy and real ambitions.

“There are essentially two ways of viewing Caesar. The first is to see him as a man perceptive enough to understand that the Republican constitution could no longer function. Throughout his career he had taken considerable interest in the conditions of the poor in Rome and the native population in Rome’s provinces, and realized that the territories could not be run simply for the selfish benefit of a tiny elite in Rome.” p.78

I would recommend this book to anyone who would like a brief but informative summery into one of the most famous military and political conflicts the world had ever seen: the Roman Civil War of Caesar and Pompey.

{Video from the History Channel's Decisive Battles series. However there is a factual error: the video states Caesar married Pompey's daughter the opposite is true. The reason the woman was named 'Julia' is because she was Caesar's daughter.}

NOWADAYS THEY CALL THIS PLACE FRANCE

A review of Kate Gilliver’s Caesar’s Gallic Wars: 58-50 B.C. (2002)
Part of Essential Histories Series# 43

(Rating 5 of 5)

Back in the time of Caesar, it was Gaul, a name given and used by none who lived there. Kate Gilliver in her ninety-two-page work details the conquest of the area known as Gaul to the Romans, by the most famous Roman of them all, Gaius Julius Caesar. The tribes of Gaul were the oldest and most hated enemies of the Romans. It was a Gallic tribe that sacked Rome in the year 390 B.C. causing hatred that would last for generations. Not even Hannibal of Carthage had been able to sack Rome; he only got close to it. Rome would always fear the image of Gallic invasions coming from the North. In the centuries that followed Rome and Gallic tribes would clash repeatedly, but this time was different. This time a Roman general, Julius Caesar was going to take the fight directly to the heart of Gaul itself.

“The Roman siege works at Alesia were extraordinary in the size and complexity. After digging a deep ditch on the plain to prevent cavalry attacks on the working parties, the Romans built a rampart with palisade and towers at regular intervals, and a double ditch, one filled with water diverted from the rivers where possible; seven camps and 23 redoubts were added at strategic points. This line covered circuit of 11 miles. Caesar was not happy even with this formidable system of defenses, and lines of bobby traps were extended for several yards in front of the trenches. These comprised rows of sharpened stakes, then covered pits with sharpened stakes planted in them, and finally rows of wooden stakes with barbed iron spikes stuck into them. Once this circuit was complete Caesar had another identical line built outside, 14 miles in circumference, to protect the besiegers from the relieving army. The whole system took about a month to construct. Archaeological investigations have indicated that the fortifications were not as complete as Caesar suggests. There may have been gaps in the lines, particularly where the terrain provided natural protection, but the systems held up to concerted attacks by both Gallic armies even when they were prepared with bridging materials to cross the outer defenses and ditches.” p.58-59

There is a lot of information packet into these ninety pages. Gilliver takes a strong look into these historical events that occurred over 2000 years ago. There are maps, detail analysis of battles, chapters devoted to both the military and civilians in this time period.

“Centurions were the highest echelon of professional soldiers in the legion and their senior officers and commanders were politicians whose military expertise and skill could very considerably. The 60 or so centurions in each legion were appointed by the army commander—the provincial governor. While some may have been appointed because of their social status, the majority gained promotion through experience, leadership, and conspicuous courage. This must have encouraged ambitious private soldiers to prove their worth on the battlefield and gain promotion to centurion.” p.66

I really enjoyed and highly recommend this book; it is useful guide into the world of the first century B.C. I would also recommend to anyone interested in reading Julius Caesar’s own Commentaries, to pick up this book first since it is a lot more clear, impartial and precise. Having this book to use as a reference while going though Caesar’s work will help any reader, especially a novice of the time period, increase their understanding of this very important historic event to Western Civilization; Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul.

{Video from the History Channel's Battles B.C.}

The People’s Dictator

A review of Luciano Canfora’s Julius Caesar: The Life and Times of the People’s Dictator (1999 original)
Translated by Marian Hill and Kevin Windle (2007)

(Rating:2 of 5)

This is not going to be a positive review. The problem is however; I really do not know whom to blame for it. This book was written and published in Italian, in 1999, and then translated into English in 2007. Since I do not speak Italian and do not have the original work even if I did, it is hard to pin down blame.

I think the forward was the best and most interesting part of the whole book. That part of the book is fascinating, dealing with how Caesar has been viewed over the thousands of years since he died by various individuals. The first thing the Canfora discusses is how Caesar’s reputation is dealt with through the propaganda of his heir, the Emperor Augustus. This is followed by how Caesar was viewed by the monarchs of the Early and High Middle Ages, and a whole section dedicated to how Napoleon Bonaparte viewed Caesar and himself by comparison. Although Caesar has fans throughout the ranks of the rulers, his reputation amongst republicans is not positive, to them Caesar is no hero.

After that, however, the book goes down hill very quickly. If one were to look at the table of contents, the book would seem very well organized. However, the narrative is clogged and that makes it extremely hard to follow. Often times the author interrupts what he is saying make some point about how Napoleon viewed something or another that Caesar did. For example, almost halfway though the book, at the end of part II, is a whole ‘debate’ about how brutal Caesar was while in Gaul. During which the author stops talking about Caesar’s life entirely and for a whole chapter just focus on how various historians have treated and focused on the conquests themselves. It would make an incredible article for some journal, but it completely interrupts the narrative of the book.


The book is not a total loss I did learn some interesting information that I did not know before. I was not, for example, very familiar with Sextus Caesar. The young Sextus Caesar was a young officer who was Caesar the Dictator’s young cousin. Canfora describes a relationship that is so close that had the young Sextus had lived it might have been he, not Gaius Octavius, to have been the heir and later champion.

In the end, I cannot really recommend the book. I am a lover history and I do have affection for the old Roman Empire, but this book is too choppy for me. This maybe an unfair assessment since it is, as I noted in the opening paragraph, a translation; it is however, not a translation I can strongly recommend.

{Video is a preview of the 2002 TNT movie about Julius Caesar not very accurate but a lot better then this book}

Day of Patricide or Liberation (depending on your point of view)

For a moment, I am taking a break from my book reviews to notice the date. The Ides of March hath come, but are not yet over. Gaius Julius Caesar is arguably the most famous man in history. His story begins in a time of great crisis in Rome. With victory in the Punic Wars, Rome had elimated it’s ancient rival, Carthage, and gained an empire that spread over the Mediterranean Sea. However, this blessing came with a horrible price, a republic design to govern a small city was not very good at governing an empire. As a result, massive social problems and corruption were the norm. Reform efforts were met with hostility by those who profited from corruption and those who felt the Republic was pure and divine as it was. Reformers such as Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and his brother were murdered, and men, like Sulla, gained power by use of force.

Julius Caesar emerges as reforming politician who engineers an alliance with Pompey and Crassus to bring about reforms that Rome needed. Caesar would then go to Gaul (Rome’s first enemy), defeat the tribes, and brings the territory into Rome’s dominion. This act would establish him as one of Rome’s great generals. After the death of Crassus and Caesar’s own daughter, Julia (Pompey’s wife), those who were once friends turned on each other and would battle for supremacy in a great civil war. Caesar emerges triumphant over all those who tried to stop him. Instead of killing those who opposed him, he grants amnesty. However, he takes the power of dictator and seems, to some, to be making himself the king. If you are Marcus Junius Brutus, the descendent of Lucius Junius Brutus, lifetime dictatorship is not tolerable. Therefore, Brutus, Cassius, and sixty other senators would proudly make this day immortal.

On the Ides of March, Julius Caesar was assassinated in Pompey’s theater, which was acting as the Senate house at that time, a scene that has been reenacted an uncountable amount of times since.

One of the things that makes what happened so interesting is you can make either side out to be the heroic side or the villainous, or you can like Shakespeare call the whole thing a tragedy.

From the classic Shakespeare with Marlon Brando from 1953:



From a TV version in 1979

From the 2002 TV movie with Jeremy Sisto



The recent HBO Rome series 2006 where Ciaran Hinds gives the best I got stabbed twenty-six times performance.



A cute little claymation about Caesar’s death



Or Lego people






***On a different note Happy Birthday, Maine! ***