The horror of ancient warfare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

I don't particularly enjoy treading on territory which isn't quite within the limits of my own personal expertise, but isn't De Bello Gallico somewhat... biased?

---

Somewhat, but from what I understand, Caesar wasn't biased in that way - he might try to disguise his motives in his writing (particularly in de bello civile, when he had to defend his choice to go to war with the senate), but from what we understand, his description of what actually HAPPENED is dead on. So I'd say he's a credible source for these purposes. -M

Ps. don't worry about treading outside your own personal expertise, I do it a fair bit myself. Only means you learn something new. ~;)

Really? I suppose that explains why it's always taken as a credible source, a fact which always puzzled me.

Caesar was a great man. On every fifteenth day of March, I take the liberty of wearing a makeshift laurel wreath in his honour.

Caesar's army contained many prominent Romans that would be in correspondence with home, so the senate would have a pretty good idea of what was going in Gaul. In fact, I recall that Cicero in of his speeches demonstrated a detailed and very up-to-date knowledge of the events that beset an army operating in cis-Alpine Gaul, although this may not have been the norm. The point is though that Caesar was not beyond easy communication in Gaul, and could not have made up his own stories without the home-front finding out. Hence his account had to be accurate. On the other hand, it's unlikely that his own officers would have spoken out if Caesar made them look good, so we should not take his story as gospel truth either.

Cicero's brother served with Caesar in gaul, I think as Tribune of the 10th legion that was caesar's favorite, so Cicero would have a good picture indeed of happenings there.