Talk:Commentarii de Bello Gallico

The book itself

There is remarkably little about the text itself: there isn't even a mention of how many libri there are! A section with a short outline of the contents of each book would be immensely helpful. 2A02:A44A:104F:1:A961:B4BD:49D1:DA26 (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Costume

From the article: Notable chapters describe Gaulish costume (VI, 13). Does anyone know what this should refer to? I don't think there is any reference to clothing in this chapter.

Co-author

Didn't Hirtius write part of The Gallic Wars? That's what my edition of it says, at least. Kuralyov 00:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nods. Hiritus wrote Book VII. Also, it's Commentaria de Bello Gallica, not De Bello Gallico. There are a few other errors. Sorry, I've just spent the last year studying the work. Dastal 03:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it written as Commentarii de Bello Gallica, and it's in Wikisource as Commentarii de bello Gallico, which is also what Literary works of Julius Caesar lists it as. So, uh, I'm confused. I never was very good at Latin... --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

"Bello Gallica" doesn't make any sense, unless "Commentaria de Bello Gallica" means "Gaulish Commentary on War" ("Commentarii de Bello Gallica" is just nonsense :)). "Commentarii" or "Commentaria" or whatever word isn't really necessary either, it's usually just called "De Bello Gallico" (maybe to avoid the problem of what gender "commentary" is). Adam Bishop 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...the article on Hiritus says he wrote book eight. I find it hard to believe he wrote book seven because that is the famous part with Vercingetorix. Could someone clarify? User:15lsoucy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.16.42 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hirtius wrote book 8 definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.171.216 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy

How historically accurate is it?

Good question, because the Gauls left no written records to speak of. And the cliche is, of course, that history is written by the victors.

That said, "though its publication was doubtless timed to impress on the mind of the Roman people the great services rendered by Caesar to Rome, [it] stands the test of criticism as far as it is possible to apply it, and the accuracy of its narrative has never been seriously shaken", as one website puts it. Obviously it's biased towards the Roman perspective on things, but this bias can be filtered out. 82.92.119.11 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of it is inaccurate and indeed is contradicted by other parts of the same work (eg Germans and agriculture, Gauls use of writing). This is probably because Caesar, like many others, draws on the lost works of Poseidonis and then adds facts observed at first hand. In general its a mine of useful and generally accurate facts, which are often corroborated by archaeology. --Nantonos 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

don't believe the part about teh stags with no joints in their legs, and the Gauls used to saw a tree at the base while the creature leaned sleeping upon it, so the tree would collapse, along with the stag. I pretty sure that part was imagined1Nathraq 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

True - the whole part he wrote in order to divert attention from his debâcle is less reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44a:104f:1:a961:b4bd:49d1:da26 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Caesar claims that he captured documents from the Helvetii stating that 368,000 people had joined the migration and which listed 92,000, by name, as fighters/militia. These numbers are logistically impossible, as Delbrück has noted, and you would need a fair many scrolls for the names alone, more with any identifying information, and so on. Caesar, at best, is exaggerating both the numbers and the detail of any documentation. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't suppose "listing by name" means listing the name of each individual. I could easily have been "Slamix - 1200 men; Bigdix - 1450 men; .." and so on. See many of the Biblical listings for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44a:104f:1:a961:b4bd:49d1:da26 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

History of the text

What is the earliest vetted manuscript of the text? Can something be added about the history of the text. Has the original manuscript been lost? Do any ancient copies remain? Are modern editions derived from a single medieval source or many? Zeimusu | Talk page 14:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's over two thousand years old, I would be unbelieveably surprised if the original manuscript made it. --AiusEpsi 00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Christies there are 75 early copies in existence, some dating from the 9th century (i.e. at least 850 years after the original). --Chilukar (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Common Incorrect Translation

I remember my history teacher translating "bello" as "beautiful" (no doubt with the French "belle" in mind), and I remember hearing that this is a common mistake made by people who don't know any Latin. Perhaps we should add something about that to the article, if we can find a source for it.

Not to step on your or your teacher's toes, but that's rubbish. — Mütze 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is. However, what I meant was that if this is a common mistake, we should mention that it is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.180.130 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

Should this article not have an English title, e.g. "Commentaries on the Gallic War"? This is after all an encyclopedia, which is aimed at general readers, most of whom don't know Latin. I'd suggest this for any other Latin works that are listed by their Latin title as well. --Nicknack009 08:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think is fine as is, and is now widely wikilinked under its present name. --Nantonos 17:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect translation of title

I believe that a more accurate translation of the title would be "Commentaries on the Gallic War." Bello Gallico is singular, whereas Bellis Gallicis would be plural. This is only a minor detail, but as it says "literally," it would be best to actually give a literal translation. Fenoxielo 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Vorenus and Pullo

I think that section is completely unrelated to the article, in any case it should be in the article about the HBO series. 168.234.230.217 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if anything just a basic summary of the book should be added, making such quips relevant. After all the Vorenus and Pullo reference is brief at best. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication date

How do I format a citation of this work as a reference within the article Suessiones? What is the publication date? Do I list the reference as "Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Gaius Julius Caesar, 57 bc, p. ii" ? The wars were around 57 bc, the memoirs must have been published at least a couple of years later.

There is talk that Caesar wrote the Commentarii more than a decade after the Gallic Wars, based on his tone and criticism towards some of his lieutenants. These lieutenants he would have been in good favor with during the Gallic Wars, but they betrayed him in later wars. -Erin553 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.210.5 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

third person and "Criticisms" section

I changed the description of the work as Caesar's "third-person account" to "firsthand account ... written as a third-person narrative." This is an important distinction, as the significance of his use of third person is the subject of much scholarly discussion. Cassius Dio wrote a third-person account of the war, for example; he wasn't there. Caesar's account is obviously eyewitness and firsthand; his use of the third person to refer to himself is a rhetorical strategy. Discussion of this may be found in many sources, but particularly the collection of essays Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. Also, the section on "Criticisms" is completely unsupported by citations from either primary or secondary sources, even though it deals with interpretation and opinion. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bellum Gallicum

The above redirects to this article, and some sources refer to it by that name. What's the difference between Bello Gallico and Ballum Gallicum, and which is the correct name to use? Does it depend on the context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.246.1 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of Latin grammar. Bellum Gallicum is the nominative case, the form used when a noun phrase is the subject of a sentence or stands on its own. Bello Gallico is the dative case, the form used when the noun phrase follows a preposition, in this case De, of or about. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

ABLATIVE case ;) - Correctly it should be either "Bellum Gallicum" or "De bello Gallico", not simply "Bello Gallivo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.16.90 (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In short: Bellum Gallicum means "Gallic War", and De Bello Gallico means "On the Gallic War". So the former refers to the war itself and the latter refers to the book. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is a joke

What is this about? A question about the origin of the text has been asked here above. The answer appears to be that we deal with the medieval text that was presented as ancient by origin and ascribed to an ancient character. What is the proof that it had indeed been written about 2 millennia ago? This is the only question relevant to the subject.Axxxion (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that anyone from the 8th century who knew Latin would have taken the time and the energy to compose two fictitious accounts of two separate wars purely as an elaborate farce. You will find that there are very few surviving manuscripts of anything dating from before the fall of Rome. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

My point is that there is no strictly scientific way to prove that the text was actually composed by the guy he has been ascribed to since 9th century. What had been going on for 9 hundred (!) years prior?Axxxion (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

1) There is no strictly scientific way to prove that the Axxxion who composed the above line is actually the same Axxxion who registered the account. Common sense tells me that it is almost certainly true, but there is no way to prove it scientifically. Luckily we're not talking about science, we're talking about history. As far as I can tell, the scholars of Roman history are unanimous in agreeing that Julius Caesar did in fact exist, and the 9th century manuscript is in fact a copy of one he wrote himself. This is established to well within the level of uncertainty inherent in their field.
2) Your edits to the article are unconstructive. Please confine your discussion of this topic to the talk page until it is resolved.
--Aurochs (Talk | Block) 11:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have evidence of scholarly debate about the authorship of the book, then find reliable sources that refer to it. This article could certainly be improved with information about source texts, Latin style etc. But simply claiming there is doubt for no reason other than generic scepticism is not how we do things. Paul B (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This post was a joke and an insult to the intelligence of thousands. Italia2006 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Are the Usipetes and Tencteri necessarily Germanic?

I recall some sources claiming that their tribal names are Celtic, and the same for the Nemetes and Tribocci who Caesar also identifies as Germani. Right now the article refers to anachronistic "Germans," I'm not sure if these references, in this section, are intended to refer to the Usipetes and Tencteri or to other groups also.173.66.211.53 (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In reply to the above: Book IV describes the Usipetes and Tencteri as "Germani", therefore it is reasonable for a description of Book IV to refer to them in the same manner: as Germans. The article is about the Commentarii de Bello Gallico, not whether tribal names are Celtic or Germanic.75.92.14.80 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Druids

So I'm not sure how relevant it is, but druids and the culture of Gaul are described in book VI immediately before the German culture is described. Caesar writes about them in sections 13-20, (although I'm not sure if that is just how my Latin textbook and AP test divide the book) and it seems that it is pretty significant considering the fact that it is mentioned in the article on the druids (and the AP test too I guess). Is this information relevant enough to be in the summary of book VI, or is it a minor thing? (The only reason I noticed it was missing is because I'm studying for my AP Latin midterm, so the information could be of use to the people who take the AP exam). EDIT: Forgot this 65.27.230.73 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted "Contents" Section: Bizarrely Slanted and Apologetic, Unsourced

I have removed the large "contents" section of this article. Has anyone managed to compare this to the actual text or scholarship surrounding it? Take for example this line from the former "contents" section "he attacks and defeats the remaining Germans who are disadvantaged by the absence of their leadership". This is intended to be a summary of 14 and 15 of book 4. However, read the section and the scholarship around it—these chapters describe the massacre of an apparently very large number of women and children from the displaced Tencteri and Usipetes. Seriously, WTF? This sort of apologetic nonsense doesn't here or anywhere else that has the slightest pretense of respectability. No wonder none of it is sourced. Delete it all and start over. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If YOU start it all over, okay. But if you just erase everything and let someone else do the work, I'll revert you again. Sapphorain (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

First, the section isn't necessary. A summary will do fine.

You seem to acknowledge the bizarre apologetic slant and the total lack of sources. Read WP:PROVEIT, for starters—the burden is on you to go digging for sources if you want this section to remain. And then you're going to have to detangle the POV. It's a fool's errand at worst and a time sink at best. Better to simply delete it and start over. You're not helping things by revert-warring. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your attitude is not constructive. Many parts of many articles contain imperfections and should be improved. Not simply deleted. The imperfections can be corrected. If you don't have the time to do it or don't feel like doing it, the imperfections can also be pointed: there are templates for that. But you seem to just delete a lot, without worrying about improving. If I am not "revert-warring", I am restoring excessive blanking. (By the way, "the section isn't necessary" is your own private opinion). Sapphorain (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Restoring the article's current state of, for example, apologizing away a massacre of women and children says something about your character and I'm not going round and round with someone who would be OK with that. If you're not interested in accuracy, you should stay away from Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your inferences concerning my character are quite ridiculous. Please feel free to correct anything you find in this summary that does not reflect Caesar's writing. (Note that this is a summary of Caesar's work, and should thus not be modified to meet "historical truth" (whatever this is); of course it can be commented by footnotes). But please don't feel free to simply erase everything (this I also call a "massacre"). Sapphorain (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring your joke about a historical massacre of women and children, maybe you should try reading the text that this article is about. Then you would have spotted these problems yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, taking the massacre in question as an example: Caesar does not even "whitewash" the massacre; he would have seen no need to for neither he nor his intended audience would have seen anything immoral in his actions. Caesar, rather, simply uses the massacre as an example of a clever military tactic. That being said, Caesar only gives a couple of sentences to the event - he does not even seem to consider it of any importance. So, when presenting a summary of the text how are we to reflect Ceasar's indifference? CIreland (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The massacre wasn't even mentioned in the text that was removed. I highly suggest that you bother to read the text that you're arguing for before you argue for it! In addition, this event has recently received significant media attention due recent archaeological finds. See, for example, this article. The simple answer is that we treat any summary of the primary source with extreme neutrality and simply use secondary, academic sources to add to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Further, it's not clear how his peers felt about the massacre. See this write up at Livius, for example ("When the genocide became known in Rome, Senator Cato the Younger exclaimed that Caesar, the general of eight legions, was to be handed over to those Germans."). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that the massacre was not mentioned in the contested text. The point I was attempting to make was that it probably was not mentioned because Caesar does not appear to afford it much importance. I didn't write the original summary, but I would imagine that was the reason for its omission. There's definitely a case for additional sections in the article describing commentary on Caesar's approach to the narrative and his reasons for variations in emphasis - but that is something that should sit outside a simple summary of the text. And, since you bring it up, I can't imagine anyone would argue that Cato, of all people, was Caesar's intended audience. CIreland (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that we agree that secondary sources and primary sources should be segregated. I am also all for a new section summarizing the contents of Caesar's book, but that's going to require rewriting with references references. We just had a testy exchange but please don't think I'm anything but happy to work with you here to get this article up to snuff (as my schedule allows!).

There are political factors that present challenges that we need to keep in mind when editing these pages. Leaving out discussion of the massacre rather reminds me a lot of a comparable situation with how Charlemagne has been treated on Wikipedia: Historically lots of leaving nasty things out or excusing them away (there was a time when you couldn't find mention of the Massacre of Verden on Wikipedia, for example). There's a very real chance that some editors involved would prefer an apologetic approach given the status of iconic figures of Western history like Caesar and Charlemagne. A massacre is no small event, and it can't go without mention—given the recent additions to the archeological record, this one probably deserves a section of its own in future revisions. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the text is fantastic propaganda and if we are to summarize the text, we should strive not to obscure Caesar's purpose by placing emphasis in contradiction to that purpose. There is a question of how to write such a summary; there is also a question of whether a summary is even desirable or possible. If there is to be a summary, I don't think that the contested material is such a terrible starting point. CIreland (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly this is a difficult text to produce a Wikipedia article on. I agree regarding the problems of approach with a propaganda piece. However, I think we need to start over and throw the mess that was there out. Whoever wrote it decided to leave out important aspects. The currently deleted write up is clearly not reliable—who knows what the Wikipedia editor had in mind but the approach is suspicious. We also require extensive sourcing, with translators quite explicitly stated. Maybe we should start a draft page working with a specific translation? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for 72 hours due to the edit warring. Please get consensus for changes before reinstating them when protection expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten: You've left the article without the text whose wholesale deletion began the recent spate of contentious editing. Was that intentional, and is it proper under policy? How does that comply with WP:STATUSQUO? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Absent a compelling reason, like BLP, Copyvio, etc. I usually protect the current version when I get to the article to avoid taking sides. See here for the policy. I'd be very hesitant to restore a previous version here, since I would be restoring text that I have no idea about the accuracy of. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That policy says, Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. My thought was that this edit of the 19th is the neutral corner. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well at the moment there is no contentious summary material ...

It might be better to try and agree on contents and style. I'm not sure a summary is desirable, but if so other editors think so then picking one chapter and getting that right on the talk page would be a good start. The opening could use secondary sources to describe the purpose, the omission of data. Caesar was no exception to others in using his writing for political rather than historical purpose and the context of the time needs to be given to a modern reader. His differing conflicts with Cato and Cicero for example need to be there ----Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation of "Gallia est omnis divisa..."

With all due respect, the word "omnis" does not mean "whole," it means "all," to translate it as "Gaul is a whole divided into three parts," the Latin would be "Gallia est tota divisa..."

I hope that we can find a translation that matches up with correct Latin grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:101:FA2E:81CF:7DA0:61C8:10A7 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is well known that the adjective omnis has been used as a substantive quite frequently by some authors, among which Caesar and Cicero. The Latin-French dictionary "Gaffiot" even cites as an example Caesar's "Gallia omnis" of "De Bello Gallico 1,1", which it translates as "l'ensemble de la Gaule" (in English "the whole of Gaul"). Sapphorain (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

… Also, I read in the Latin-English dictionary by C.T. Lewis and Charles Short, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1879, in the second paragraph for the entry "Omnis":

"II. In sing., every, all, the whole […] 'Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres,' the whole of Gallia, Caes. B. G. 1,1 […]". Sapphorain (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm just a high school senior studying for the AP who is still getting used to the methodology of Wikipedia's citation-based pages, and I didn't mean any offense. Thanks for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:101:FA2E:60D1:36D9:3821:6849 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Proven Authorship?

While the text is attributed to Julius Caesar is there actually any evidence for this claim? Why is the text not understood for instance as a work commissioned by Caesar to advance his political aspirations? Also, how recent are the manuscripts? The actual work would be BC, but if the oldest manuscripts only date back a few centuries questions about reliability can be raised. While I've done a quick search I'm not seeing anyone discussing such things and it appears a lot is being taken on faith - that the current text is the original, that Julius Caesar is the author etc. Other texts seem to be subject to far more skepticism than this, just curious why. If those questions can be answered this article would be a lot stronger. 人族 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Modern influence : Napoléon ?

Maybe the influence on two modern works, by two different Napoleon, could be mentioned :

• Napoléon Bonaparte's "Précis des guerres de César "
• and the second volume of Napoléon III's "Histoire de Jules César"

Elfast (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No citations and biased

This article is biased from a post colonial stand point. The arguments that are made to invalidate the commentaries can be used to invalidate all written Roman history. 50.70.76.39 (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Latin quotes

This article has ten Latin quotations from the book, at least three of which are not translated into English. Since we don't expect our readers to be fluent in Latin, I don't see the value in any of these quotations, and most especially the untranslated ones. I think we should remove the Latin and just give the English translations, except for the discussion of the well-known opening words in the lead. A sentence like His brother, Dumnorix had committed several acts against the Romans because he wanted to become king quod eorum adventu potentia eius deminuta et Diviciacus frater in antiquum locum gratiae atque honoris sit restitutus and summam in spem per Helvetios regni obtinendi venire seems like it must be fairly opaque to almost all readers. CodeTalker (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, go right ahead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. CodeTalker (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is David Henige cited so thoroughly in this article as well?

Henige is a specialist in African studies, and the citations all point towards a single minor paper of his, yet the article cites him extensively as though his thoughts represented the mainstream view. It's especially odd as the exact same issue permeates the Gallic Wars article. 137.103.149.109 (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Henige is no expert on Gaul, and betrays his ignorance here (citing from the Wikipedia text as of January 2024):

Caesar claims that he was able to estimate the population of the Helvetii because in their camp there was a census, written in Greek on tablets... But Henige points out that such a census would have been difficult to achieve by the Gauls, that it would make no sense to be written in Greek by non-Greek tribes

What Henige fails to realise is that pre-Roman Gaulish inscriptions always used the Greek alphabet, see the Wikipedia article on the Gaulish language, no doubt due to the influence of the Greek colony of Massilia in southern Gaul since 600 BC. 31.4.242.212 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)