Commentarii De Bello Gallico Puns

If the little vermin turns any fiction it sits on into reality, casting the author as its protagonist, then I'm ready to make our world a better place, which I'll discuss with you guys after I get the door.

Vocabulary: https://files.catbox.moe/jpaek4.ods

Commentarii pdf: https://geoffreysteadman.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/caesarbk1-beta-27mar13.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/NYle2N9.png

https://i.imgur.com/DOfovPE.png

Feel free to comment with any suggestions.

TLDR at the bottom.

Title says it all. I mean, the world building is just phenomenal. Caesar just ties it into the story so well. He literally says “Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.” Not only did he use tricolon crescens to show off his literary knowledge. He even employed interlocked word order to impress the Roman citizens to whom he was writing. There’s just so much depth that I could go on for hours about it.

And did I mention the world building? According to the brilliant author Caesar, “Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.” There’s diversity in the story. It’s not just some basic dichotomy of “us and them.” It’s not just black and white. Not to mention the tricolon crescens used to describe these three major tribes.

And who could forget about the world building? Caesar writes that “Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt.” He describes in detail one of the most fierce tribes in Gaul, cementing them as a worthy adversary for our protagonist early on the story. He even uses litotes to emphasize the fact that the Belgae are visited by merchant least often.

Caesar is such a great narrator. He has authority, knowledge, and (most importantly) charm. He is just such a great protagonist in this story. I mean, he’s just so much better than Holding Cauliflower from J. D. Salisbury’s “masterpiece” Catcher in the Rye. that guy is just so annoying, and he makes that book impossible to read.

TLDR - Holden Caulfield is a bad protagonist. Now give me upvotes and awards, plz.

This may be a stupid question, but how do we know that Julius Caesar is the one who actually wrote the war commentaries? What kind of evidence do we have, except people claiming he wrote them?

Belgalar; Galya sınırının sonundan başlar, Ren nehrinin alçak bölümüne kadar uzanır, doğu ve kuzeye yönelir. Akitanya ise Garumna nehrinden Pirene dağlarına ve İspanya tarafındaki o okyanus parçasına uzanır: yönü batı ve kuzey arasındadır.

https://preview.redd.it/z1358kqlcz461.jpg?width=630&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f66c2c8971f74f002a9cc8030802cd5b3884d3c

https://preview.redd.it/9tofrqqlcz461.jpg?width=650&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57188c302a1ae7d6975b4b36683456b9d0f24a0e

I've read many times the saying that Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War should be taken with a grain of salt, since they were written by Caesar as a propaganda piece for his own political purposes, rather than being a fair and neutral historical account.

While I don't doubt that Caesar, as an astute and cunning political leader, would be motivated to write in his own favor for his own political purposes, having actually read the book, it doesn't really read much like "propaganda" in the modern sense we understand. The book does not employ many black-and-white tactics we're accustomed to when thinking about "propaganda". It does not extensively preach morality, exclusively demonize the enemies, or sugarcoat Caesar's own actions. For example:

• Caesar gives a fair and nuanced account of his enemies' perspective and motivations, such as as explaining the reasons of Helvetii migrations due to need, rather than a blind desire for conquest.

• Caesar doesn't (exclusively) present himself as a liberator; rather, he explains his actions in rather realpolitique terms, such as preventing the Helvetii from crossing due to political reasons, rather than because it's "the morally right things to do".

• Caesar acknowledges the patriotic motivations of leaders such as Vercingetorix, clearly describing the latter as a brave freedom fighter trying to save his people from Roman yoke. He doesn't paint Vercingetorix as some evil insurgent, nor contest his own actions as being that of a conqueror.

• Caesar acknowledges the mistakes and errors of his own army, such as when one of his legions was rused out of their camp, ambushed and destroyed, or when he (almost) ran out of supplies due to putting too much trust in an unreliable ally.

• Caesar makes no attempt to hide atrocities committed by his troops, sometimes under his command, such as ordering the slaughter of civilians in captured towns that refused to surrender. Granted, this may have been the normal practice of the day, but Caesar doesn't try to paint himself as uniquely merciful or benevolent, at least on those occasions where he is resisted.

Overall, if anything, Caesar's account of himself in the book reads like he portrays himself as a ruthless, efficient, and harsh but reasonable, leader. Comply with his demands, and you'll do well and be given mercy. Oppose him, and be destroyed with no mercy or remorse. And, having read the rest of Caesar's biography, it seems that he portrayed himself exactly

[1] 1 Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. 2 Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. 3 Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, 4 proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt. Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt, quod fere cotidianis proeliis cum Germanis contendunt, cum aut suis finibus eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt. 5 Eorum una pars, quam Gallos obtinere dictum est, initium capit a flumine Rhodano, continetur Garumna flumine, Oceano, finibus Belgarum, attingit etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum, vergit ad septentriones. 6 Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur, pertinent ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni, spectant in septentrionem et orientem solem. 7 Aquitania a Garumna flumine ad Pyrenaeos montes et eam partem Oceani quae est ad Hispaniam pertinet; spectat inter occasum solis et septentriones.

[2] 1 Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix. Is M. Messala, [et P.] M. Pisone consulibus regni cupiditate inductus coniurationem nobilitatis fecit et civitati persuasit ut de finibus suis cum omnibus copiis exirent: 2perfacile esse, cum virtute omnibus praestarent, totius Galliae imperio potiri. 3 Id hoc facilius iis persuasit, quod undique loci natura Helvetii continentur: una ex parte flumine Rheno latissimo atque altissimo, qui agrum Helvetium a Germanis dividit; altera ex parte monte Iura altissimo, qui est inter Sequanos et Helvetios; tertia lacu Lemanno et flumine Rhodano, qui provinciam nostram ab Helvetiis dividit. 4 His rebus fiebat ut et minus late vagarentur et minus facile finitimis bellum inferre possent; 5 qua ex parte homines bellandi cupidi magno dolore adficiebantur. 6 Pro multitudine autem hominum et pro gloria belli atque fortitudinis angustos se fines habere arbitrabantur, qui in longitudinem milia passuum CCXL, in latitudinem CLXXX patebant.

[3] 1 His rebus adducti et auctoritate Orgetorigis permoti constituerunt ea quae ad proficiscendum pertinerent comparare, iumentorum et carrorum quam maximum numerum coemere, sementes quam maximas fac

This is a question that I have been unable to find a suitable answer to. Many of my teachers and professors over the years have said that it was in fact propaganda, but a cursory search on something like Jstor points me toward many scholarly articles that say that it was not. Was it propaganda? Is there a way to truly know? Is there one unified scholarly opinion held by the majority?

["This human costume is itchy."]

http://thisnortheasternlife.blogspot.com/2016/02/quote-of-day-for-2016-02-28.html

Why is there such a substantial lack of historical scholarship on Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico between the 1st century BC and the 19th century?

There's suddenly a revived interest in his Comentarii in the twentieth century (with the likes of C.E Stevens, Rambaud, Adkock, J.H. Collins etc) yet there's a notable absence of any such scholarship before the turn of the 20th century. I was hoping someone could clear this up for me. Thanks!

I've been looking for english translations of both of these books, and have not yet been able to locate any. Does anyone have any information?

I think the most interesting question I have around hostages is, as mentioned in the title, what would happen if an enemy hostage's tribe went back on the terms of a surrender or if a "friendly" tribe's hostage decided to be less friendly. In addition, I'm wondering how long a hostage might be kept captive and whether they'd be treated as a high-status person while in "captivity." Was there ever a situation like Theon in GoT where an child grows up (well-treated) in the home of a previous enemy?

I'm also interested in any additional anecdotes or bits of history regarding hostages outside my specific questions. My previous knowledge of hostages comes from Game of Thrones and brief scenes in The Godfather and The Borgias so I'm very open to the educated people of this sub-reddit answering the question I should have asked around the practice of hostage taking in Ancient Roman times and beyond.

I know it's widely available online, but I would like a harcopy to mark up and take notes on. One with helpful footnotes would be nice, but preferably not one with the English translation on the adjoining page. The tendency to cheat kind of gets to me.

The wikipedia entry says the oldest manuscripts we have were written in the 9th century. Do we just take their word for it or is there some actual evidence that points to it being written by Caesar?

I know that ancient writers tend to exaggerate when talking about army sizes, and the Commentaries were used as propaganda, but they are also supposed to be rather straightforward and unembellished, so can the numbers be trusted?

How to define the main divisions of each of the 7 (or 8) books of the Commentarii de Bello Gallico written by Julius Caesar? Are they some sort of paragraphs or just portions that he wrote in different moments? Thanks

I am currently working through LLPSI Familia Romana and I plan to be finished around Christmas. For the holidays I am getting De Bello Gallico and LLPSI pars II and my question is if I would be able to make my way through Caesar after finishing LLPSI or if I should work through LLPSI pars II before starting on DBG? Thanks!

I'm working my way back into Latin (had finished Ecce Romani about 4 years ago) and going through LLPSI Pars I: Familia Romana and its all coming back very quickly. I am wondering how easy Caesar's De Bello Gallico is/ at what chapter can i begin reading it? I'm heavily considering starting to buy the Loeb Classics series since I think they are a wonderful series and they have the majority of the great Latin works that'd I'd eventually read along the Latin journey (although that's WAYYY far into teh future lol). Is the Loeb series something to invest in or is there another series/collection of the Latin works that would be worth looking into?

Having trouble pinpointing the locations of all the tribes and battles in my head. Thanks!

I just finished reading through the Ørberg edition of Caesar's "Comentarii De Bello Gallico," immediately following Familia Romana. It was tough at points and took some time getting used to Caesar's writing style.

However, I found it weird how this edition is abridged, as it contains only books I, IV, and V. While these cover a lot of memorable events, from the Helvetian migration to Caesar's two invasions of Britain, we don't even get to Vercingetorix or Alesia, probably the most well-known part of the Gallic Wars.

I'm just wondering what the logic is behind abridging this edition in this way. Are the other books a bit too difficult for the post-FR student? Maybe the historical content is too obscure, complex, or even boring for the first-time reader? Or did the publisher just want to cap it at a certain page limit?

Does anyone know of a good recording of the entire book of de bello gallico in classical pronunciation?

Hi everyone,

I’ve seen on College Board that we have to read sections of both books, is it accurate or do we have to read them entirely?

Thanks

Salvete omnes!

Is there an edition of De Bello Gallico, which has macrons? (I know of the LLPSI version, but i want to have an edition, which features the entire text)

As I was reading De Bello Gallico for AP Latin, I began to wonder why Caesar used a lot of ablative absolutes and indirect statements. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Is he just doing this because that's his writing style? Why?

I'm currently reading De Bello Gallico and looking for articles, videos, books about it - as long as I can find them for free online. I'm especially interested in the historiographical issues surrounding it (how Caesar uses a seemingly factual writing style to show himself in a good light etc.) and in discussions around its value and use as a historical document.

Hi guys, yesterday my father gave me a book to practice my latin.

It's called De Bello Gallico by Caesar. It narrates the war in northen France and strangely enough the first chapter is called Liber Primus.

I also see a correlation to the vikings runes used by cicada, vikings were named "barbarians" by the romans.

That's probably something it was already checked but i'm posting just to see what you guys think.

I've noticed that the viking alphabet varies quite a bit, so maybe if the alphabet used by the barbarians at that time is identified some words can be decoded?

What is the correct term to indicate the main divisions of each of the 7 (or 8) Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Julius Ceaser) books? Are they paragraphs? Or maybe simply portions that he wrote in different days? Thanks