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

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

Ancient authors: Theodore Ayrault Dodge

Classical history is something I love to read, and there are two writers who really got me into it. The first is Machiavelli, who makes numerous concise references to classical history in The Prince. The second is a more recent fellow, an American who fought in the Civil War, named Theodore Ayrault Dodge.

Dodge wrote books which could be described either as biographies or military histories. His attention was focused upon a select number of men who had shown the spark of genius and made a lasting impression upon history.

The old soldier visited a number of the locations in which the wars he wrote of transpired, and combined this real world knowledge with a thorough understanding of ancient authors and what they had to offer.

Three generals of antiquity were written about by Dodge: Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca and Julius Caesar.

Each book is pretty hefty, and bursting with detail. Little sketches of soldiers, weapons, fortifications, siege engines and tactical/strategic maps abound throughout these books (in Caesar’s I think it’s suggested his wife did the drawing, and it’s nice to think of the two touring Europe together). The maps are particularly helpful as they put marches and actions into context and help illustrate the importance of thinking on a strategic scale.

Dodge also excels at explaining the battles that took place, detailing the strengths and weaknesses of different units and the wisdom (or lack thereof) of battlefield tactics. Where there is dispute over a tactical manoeuvre (such as Cannae) he resolves the problem by simply including all the main possibilities.

The enthusiasm he felt for the brilliant men about which he wrote shines through, and does at times border on hero worship (I think at one point he calls Hannibal a Mars amongst men). However, it is worth remembering that the three ancient generals did achieve phenomenal feats, and if the price of detailed, exciting history is a small amount of indulgence on the author’s part I consider it a bargain.

It is important to recall that the books, although riveting and pretty easy to read, are quite old (over a century) and are thus denied the benefit of more recent discoveries about the subject matter.

One potential downside is that the huge amount of detail can mean that certain chapters can become a little too long. The discussion about Hannibal’s precise route over the Alps was something I skimmed over, unlike his conflicts with the barbarians who lived there.

At the back of each book are a number of appendices, with details regarding army numbers, historical marches and the like.

I did begin his first book on Napoleon. The political machinations of the French revolution were interesting, but the battles and strategy did not interest me nearly so much as the ancient history of war elephants and Numidian cavalry.

After reading the book on Hannibal, I checked to see who Dodge’s main sources were, and duly bought the relevant bits of Livy and Polybius. From there, I’ve just bought more classical history (some ancient, some modern) and branched out from the Second Punic War.

Thaddeus