Review: Caesar, by Theodore Ayrault Dodge

I first read this military history/biography of Caesar quite some time ago, and recently finished re-reading it. Dodge’s ancient histories (he’s written similar books about Alexander and Hannibal) are amongst my favourites. There’s a great level of detail, with maps and sketches of soldiers, siege equipment and so on throughout.

This is not a full-blown biography. It’s concerned almost exclusively with the military career of Caesar. Obviously there’s also some political overlap, such as when he and Pompey had a bit of a tiff, but only when that relates to the military aspect of the subject. As you would expect, the meat of the book is the Gallic and Civil Wars (the latter including sojourns in Spain, the Balkans/Greece, Alexandria and Africa) with a few side-orders (such as the swift spanking of Pharnaces II).

Th author is clearly enthusiastic about his subject, and had the opportunity to visit the theatres of Caesar’s wars. This helps him to reconcile potential conflicts in ancient sources, Caesar’s own accounts foremost amongst them, as well as providing an opportunity for maps and sketches of the landscapes upon which battles, marches, and sieges occurred. It must be said that Dodge sometimes gets a bit carried away (he really does like the three ancient generals about which he wrote) but that doesn’t stop him criticising when he feels Caesar’s been a daft sod (most of the general’s great successes are only great because he thrust himself needlessly into peril and it took significant skill to extricate himself).

Caesar’s reckless conduct gets pulled up several times, but this is far outweighed by successes achieved all over Europe. And, alongside the recklessness, audacity enabled some of the signal victories, most notably at Pharsalus, where he attacked an army twice his size.

It’s also worth remarking upon an episode that doesn’t fit the popular narrative of Caesar, namely his brutality. Specifically, killing around 430,000 Germanic people whilst the tribe was conducting peace negotiations with him. The book was written pre-WWII, and Dodge uses the term holocaust to describe Caesar’s actions (the man himself claimed the Germanic tribe was plotting to betray him so he struck pre-emptively. Dodge is not persuaded).

In addition to the history of Caesar, there is much information on the Roman army and how it had changed over the centuries, particularly from its peak in the Second Punic War. There’s also a splendid chapter near the end comparing Caesar, Alexander and Hannibal in a variety of ways.

It’s a hefty 800 pages but the text is often broken up by drawings, so it’s not quite as dense as it might appear. Overall, an engaging portrayal of one of history’s most intriguing figures.

Related books I’ve reviewed include:

The Crisis of Rome [the period shortly prior to Caesar’s, involving his uncle Marius] - http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/review-crisis-of-rome-jugurthine-and.html

Sallust’s works - http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/review-sallust-catilines-war-jugurthine.html

Thaddeus

Julius Caesar and Genocide

Yes, it’s one of those cheerful blogs.

I was twittering away, conversing with a friend, when I happened to mention Julius Caesar once massacred almost half a million Germanian tribesmen.

And so the idea for this blog was born. Unlike almost every other figure from classical history, people do generally know a bit about Julius Caesar. Some of it is tosh. The ‘veni, vidi, vici’ quote isn’t from when he invaded Britain (and failed), it’s from when he crushed Pharnaces II, the ruler of Pontus. Similarly, he wasn’t born by Caesarian section (we know this because although Romans could practice it, the procedure always killed the mother and we know that Caesar’s mum survived birthing him).

Other bits of common knowledge are true. He did conquer Gaul (mostly. Gallia Narbonensis had been conquered some time earlier). He did cross the Rubicon and cause a cold war to become a hot one. And he was murdered in the Senate by some of his former friends.

Part of this history is written by Caesar himself. The Gallic War entirely, and the first quarter or so of The Civil War (the rest being written by a few contemporary authors). His adopted son, who took the name Augustus, also had reasons to embellish the propaganda around Julius Caesar’s conduct. After all, nobody wants to say their adoptive dad was a lunatic, do they?

But there are certain things about Caesar which are not common knowledge today. In his lifetime he acquired (and detested) the nickname the Queen of Bithynia. This was because he was sent on a diplomatic mission to Bithynia (small kingdom in Asia Minor, if memory serves) and was so fond of the king he stayed on longer than planned.

A loathed nickname being expunged, mostly, from history is understandable when you become dictator for life and your adopted son becomes the first emperor of Rome. There is a more troubling act of Caesar’s that remains obscured from general knowledge, though.

He murdered tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of innocent people.

A Germanian tribe, reportedly 430,000 strong (even allowing for exaggeration, the number will be vast), was negotiating peacefully with the Romans, led by Caesar. Or so they thought. In the middle of negotiation, Caesar had them all slaughtered.

This was not an army, it was a tribe of men, women and children. And he butchered them, citing duplicity on their part as the justification. In his biography (simply entitled Caesar), TA Dodge used the term ‘holocaust’ to describe the act (the history pre-dates WWII by some decades).

This was not the first time such an action was attempted. Decades earlier, the Cimbri (a tribe seeking to settle peacefully on Roman territory if possible, and to migrate west by passing through Roman territory if not) was similarly attacked. Unfortunately for the Romans, who initiated the battle, the Cimbri won. This was repeated, farcically, several times. In one such battle, Arausio, partly due to mutual loathing of Roman leaders Caepio and Maximus, the Romans suffered a defeat to rank alongside Cannae. Eventually the Cimbri were defeated by Marius, Julius Caesar’s uncle.

Roman belligerence towards barbarian tribes, therefore, was nothing new. Indeed, in Rome and Italy (by Livy), there’s an approving passage written of Roman action to kill a huge number of fighting age men of the enemy.

And yet this genocide of Caesar is little known. I do wonder whether, at the time, the reason was very different to that of his nickname becoming little known. It might just be that in the 1^st century BC, wiping out a tribe of barbarians was seen as a good thing, but not significant enough to be worth remembering.

It’s tempting to think of the Romans only in terms of civilising influence (roads, rule of law, the Pax Romana, what have the Romans ever done for us? Etc). They weren’t above exterminating tribes of people who wanted peace. But it was deemed ok. Because the hundreds of thousands they murdered were savages.

Thaddeus

Review: Caesar’s War Commentaries, by Julius Caesar

The Queen of Bithynia, or Julius Caesar as he is sometimes known, was a chap from the first century BC who wrote two accounts of his military and political adventures. The Gallic Wars covers his substantial role in conquering Gaul (NB Gallia Narbonensis, covering the south coast, was a province founded before Caesar turned up). The much shorter The Civil War is about his tussle with a chap called Pompey for supremacy of the known world.

The edition I read is from the 1950s, an Everyman’s Library version with an interesting take on the translation. Interesting, in that Caesar wrote in the third person and it’s been shifted to the first (with the exception of a connecting letter written by Aulus Hirtius). I have read a different version of The Civil War (including three parts, of four, which were written by other chaps) and have to say the perspective change really improves it. Another change, of which I was less fond, was changing the ‘cohort’ to ‘battalion’. Changing the money sums to pounds (from 1950s Britain) is also a bit tricky. Modern place names are used, with ancient equivalents mentioned as footnotes on the first occasion.

I have to say I really rather enjoyed it. The Gallic Wars is written in a more polished, immersive way than The Civil War (which is terser and there is some suggestion he intended to edit and redraft it until he had a meeting with Brutus which resulted in a dramatic decline in his writing output). Descriptions are concise but sufficient to fully convey the situation, and there is an air of objectivity about the writing which lends weight to the account (even though Caesar cannot possibly be entirely objective, of course).

It should be stressed that there’s an emphasis on military matters, both strategic and tactical, and that the political situation, excepting The Civil War (which is perhaps a fifth or less of the book), are in the background.

Because it ends with the last portion likely written by Caesar, it does not finish at a natural point (after Pharsalus, for example), but that merely adds to the sense of mortal strife that was encompassing the world at that point in history. Many other notable people are killed during the course of the two accounts, and the fact the author himself falls prey to mortality fits the subject matter nicely.

Caesar’s life and the aftermath of his death marked the end of the Roman Republic and ushered in the Roman Empire. It’s a critical turning point of the Roman state, which had existed for about seven centuries at this point and continued, using the longer measure, for another fifteen or so afterwards.

Thaddeus

Review: The Civil War, by Julius Caesar

The version I got is by Penguin and includes the Civil War, the Alexandrian War, the African War and the Spanish War and was translated by Jane Gardner.

I actually first read it some years ago and wasn't too enamoured, so I thought I'd re-read it and see whether my perception had changed.

The book is written, probably, by four separate authors, with the Civil War by Caesar and each of the subsequent three sections by different writers. It covers the period from just before the war actually began to the destruction of the anti-Caesar forces in Spain some time later.

Caesar's own writing covers what many would consider the most important part of the Civil War, ranging from the preamble to the defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus, with some adventures in Spain and the setback at Dyrrhachium along the way. It has a rather mechanical feel to it. The writing offers a reasonable level of detail but it wasn't, for me at least, very engaging. This is helped somewhat by the fact that the historical period covered does have many exciting events and is of great importance, but I never felt especially enthused by it. Whilst a certain level of bias is inevitable (no-one can be truly objective when writing about how they won a war) it does seem to be fairly minimal.

The Alexandrian War is probably my favourite part. Still offering as much detail as the Civil War, it seems a bit more engaging and the writing style is not as stark as Caesar's own. This part covers the events that occurred in Egypt, where Pompey fled and was slain, and the Egyptian battle for the crown into which Caesar became entangled.

The African War, rather obviously, happened in Africa. With Pompey dead the war is in the hands of a Scipio (although not one on a par with Africanus or Aemilianus) and King Juba, the leader of Numidia who had sided with the Pompeians. I found the level of detail a bit more lacking in this section, although the war itself did seem quite interesting. The writer was not as good as the previous author.

Lastly, the Spanish War, which dealt with Gnaeus and Sextus Pompeius, the sons of Pompey. They'd gone to Spain and were chased there by Caesar. I have to admit that I found this to be the weakest section of the book, as it never really grabbed me and seems to be somewhat lighter on detail than the earlier sections.

The period covered is fascinating and important but I found the book overall to be somewhat lacklustre. I'd sooner recommend Theodore Ayrault Dodge's military history/biography Caesar, to be honest. However, for people especially interested in classical history it may be a worthwhile purchase as there are few books written by men of such significance as Caesar. For him, I think it's just as well he was a better general and statesman than a writer.

Thaddeus

Hannibal Vs Julius Caesar

I was going to link to this article in response to Mr. Llama’s comments on the last post, only to discover (to my great surprise) I hadn’t actually written it.

Hannibal Barca and Julius Caesar are two of the outstanding generals of the Ancient World (the other obvious candidate being Alexander the Great). However, it is a bone of contention between myself and the aforementioned Mr. Llama as to which fellow is actually the better (in military terms only). I think it’s Hannibal (I’d rank him approximately equal to Alexander), he thinks it’s Caesar (Scipio Africanus was more impressive, I think).

I’ll compare the two chaps in a number of categories to make my case. These are: Tactical and Strategic Ability, Enemies, Greatest Military Achievements.

Tactical and Strategic Ability

Tactically, there can be no contest. Lake Trasimene was one of the greatest ambushes in history, and Hannibal followed this up with arguably the most impressive battle of all time: Cannae. He also excelled in the difficult strategic challenge posed by Quintus Fabius Maximus and his cunning cunctatory ways. Last but not least, he was also talented at spotting opportunities others did not and doing the unexpected, such as his clever march through the Arnus Marshes or, even more unpredictable, marching through the Alps in winter.

Caesar had a very good battlefield record. However, from memory, I cannot recall him often deviating from the standard three line approach of the Romans. One such example was Pharsalus, where he faced an opponent so predictable Caesar knew to put a fourth line in such a way as to protect his force from the inevitable cavalry charge. Regarding logistics and strategic thinking, Caesar was certainly competent, but there is no battle he won worthy of comparison with Cannae, nor march comparable to the crossing of the Alps.

Enemies

Hannibal did fight the Celtiberians, but most of what we know of him was his warfare against Rome. Roman soldiers were tremendously well-equipped, not least with a pathological sense of patriotism. The earliest generals he faced were usually mediocre, however, he later faced the intelligent Marcellus, the talented Nero and the highly skilled Scipio Africanus.

Caesar had two great campaigns, against the Gauls and then the Romans Pompey commanded. The Gauls were certainly no pushover, however, they had a limited understanding of tactics and strategy, and Vercingetorix emerged too late to save his people. Pompey’s days of action were behind him, and the soldiers he commanded, whilst patriotic Romans, were inexperienced. Despite this, Caesar was defeated at Dyrrhachium and saved only by Pompey’s timidity. Later, Pompey could have avoided Pharsalus and so won through the style of Quintus Fabius Maximus, instead of which he emulated the magister equitum Marcus Minucius Rufus, allowed himself to be bullied by the senators and launched an attack he didn’t want to and which failed.

Greatest Military Achievements

Hannibal has a plethora of epic accomplishments, a single one of which would make a lesser man famous in its own right. He crossed the Alps in winter, with elephants, marching against hostile tribes. Cannae is perhaps the greatest victory on a battlefield ever seen, Lake Trasimene may claim to be one of the greatest ambushes. Those who say ‘He lost’ miss the point. If I have a machinegun and fight an arthritic granny and win it is far less impressive then if I tie my hands together and almost beat Jet Li in a duel.

Caesar’s victories were more easily acquired, but also had a long-lasting impact. Gaul remained Roman almost until the Western Empire crumbled, and his defeat of Pompey changed Rome from a republic to an empire. These are mighty achievements, but is there a battle he fought to equal Cannae, a march as heroic as the Alpine endeavour of Hannibal? No.

This is why I think Hannibal was the greater of the two men, in military terms. He went up against Rome at its most fanatically patriotic, when it issued army after army against him despite incurring losses that would have crippled any other nation. And yet, he came close to ultimate victory, and even the Romans acknowledged his greatness. Caesar defeated some disunited barbarians, and then narrowly led an army of veterans to victory over inexperienced soldiers led by a man who made a number of critical errors.

Thaddeus

The strange parallels of Alexander and Caesar

There are perhaps three generals of antiquity who stand head and shoulders above all the rest. Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca (my personal favourite) and Julius Caesar.

All three have fantastic biographies/military histories by Theodore Ayrault Dodge, and it was reading these that I first came across the almost eerie parallels between Alexander and Caesar.

Both men were born into good families (in Macedon the kingdom was theoretically hereditary but it was pretty common for an uncle of a king to take over, as Alexander’s own father did). Alexander played an instrumental role in the Battle of Chaeronea at 17, slaughtering the elite Theban Sacred Band, and became king at 19 until his death just over a decade later. Caesar was a slower starter (it is scarcely possible to be faster) but he too rose to become the undoubted leader of his armies and effectively became a king.

The two generals led elite military forces that grew accustomed to unprecedented success under their leaders. Alexander clearly had the greater achievement, in my view. After centuries of fearing the overwhelming power of Persia he led the Hellenistic armies to total victory, scoring staggering victories and reducing every city that dared defy him by expert siegecraft (Tyre being particularly impressive). However, Caesar also had a great military record, finally exorcising the ghost of the Gauls who had ravaged Rome centuries earlier.

Neither man truly knew defeat on the battlefield. Caesar did not enjoy unmitigated success, but his record is nevertheless excellent. Alexander’s feats almost defy belief and he was a legend even in his own lifetime.

However, both men died premature deaths. Alexander probably died of a fever, although there is a suggestion that Antipater (who ran Macedon in Alexander’s absence) had Iollas, his son and the king’s wine-pourer, poison him. Caesar, rather famously, got stabbed to death by a large number of people.

Sadly, there’s a rather more gruesome coincidence between the two. Caesar’s son was called Ptolemy Caesarion, and was executed by Octavian (who became Augustus) before his 18^th birthday. Alexander’s son was officially king, but regents ruled in his stead. He was killed by Cassander, ruler of Macedon, when some claimed a 13 year old could rule on his own.

Ironically, both men, who barely knew defeat in their military careers, died younger than Hannibal (who lost the Second Punic War). Neither of their sons succeeded them and both defeated a great foe (admittedly, Caesar did slaughter his own side).

Both chaps also had epilepsy, which is a rather strange coincidence. [Hannibal was also disabled, but he had one eye, having lost one to exposure during the perilous march through the Arnus Marshes].

There were some rumours that Caesar was also friendly with fellows, as Alexander famously was, but there’s some doubt about that.

So, unusually, both chaps had epilepsy, both died prematurely, and neither were succeeded by their sons (both of whom were murdered). It is possible both were murdered and partial to man-on-man action, but the former is uncertain regarding Alexander and the latter regarding Caesar.

Thaddeus