What do you think?
Rate this book
Caesar: Life of a Colossus
Tracing the extraordinary trajectory of the great Roman emperor’s life, Goldsworthy covers not only the great Roman emperor’s accomplishments as charismatic orator, conquering general, and powerful dictator but also lesser-known chapters during which he was high priest of an exotic cult, captive of pirates, seducer not only of Cleopatra but also of the wives of his two main political rivals, and rebel condemned by his own country. Ultimately, Goldsworthy realizes the full complexity of Caesar’s character and shows why his political and military leadership continues to resonate some two thousand years later.
In the introduction to his biography of the great Roman emperor, Adrian Goldsworthy writes, “Caesar was at times many things, including a fugitive, prisoner, rising politician, army leader, legal advocate, rebel, dictator . . . as well as husband, father, lover and adulterer.” In this landmark biography, Goldsworthy examines Caesar as military leader, all of these roles and places his subject firmly within the context of Roman society in the first century B.C.
In the introduction to his biography of the great Roman emperor, Adrian Goldsworthy writes, “Caesar was at times many things, including a fugitive, prisoner, rising politician, army leader, legal advocate, rebel, dictator . . . as well as husband, father, lover and adulterer.” In this landmark biography, Goldsworthy examines Caesar as military leader, all of these roles and places his subject firmly within the context of Roman society in the first century B.C.
583 pages, Hardcover
First published May 11, 2006
About the author
Adrian Goldsworthy
42 books1,390 followersAdrian Goldsworthy, born in 1969, is the author of numerous acclaimed books, including biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He lectures widely and consults on historical documentaries for the History Channel, National Geographic, and the BBC. He lives in the UK.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 670 reviews
August 22, 2013
This is not an easy book to write, the biography of Caesar. The man who died at the hands of many but whose life has been revived repeatedly by numerous pens and brushes. From Plutarch, to Suetonius, to Shakespeare, to Gérôme, to the Hollywood or TV studios, to the Asterix cartoons…, we have a whole array of possible accounts to choose the version that better suits our imagination. And that is of course without counting the image that emerges from his own Memoirs, the Comentarii, and possibly from a collection of poems by him.. (De Bello…)
Gaius Julius Caesar was a solid personality. He was a devoted son, a courageous soldier and astute commander. As a resourceful engineer he built bridges across the Rhine that held the footsteps of his soldiers but shook the minds of the Germanic tribes. He was a worthy husband but also expected a worthy wife, becoming a determined divorcee as his wife had to be above suspicion. Married or not, he was also a gallant philanderer who chose well, as his penchant for the women of other senators or his picking of a legendary beauty indicates. He was a loving father to his dear Julia even if he married her with political aims to someone twice her age. He had to know what was right for her as she did fall deeply in love with Pompey, her magnificent husband. His writing became the textbook of generals in posterity providing a tool for success for figures who further changed history, and we can think of Napoleon. His clemency was also notorious, and he seemed to have relished his power most, not in punishing but in forgiving. As a reformist politician, Caesar realized that if the Roman society had to change, the core revision had to involve land laws because everything else was grounded there. His reforms also extended to the calendar. He synchronized it anew with the sun, in an almost perfect convention that lasted for about sixteen centuries. As a dictator he changed the concept of his position from the Roman elected nomination for a maximum of five years, to the fuller, more modern and more odious powers. And last but not least, he was the brave and resolute prey of one of the most famous assassinations in history.
His death features as the main plot in Shakespeare’s tragedy which coined the essence of treason in the: “Et tu, Brute?”. This death even becomes the first chapter in Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician, as if the orator’s life could only be understood in reference to the figure of Julius Caesar. And this death has inspired the palette of many visionaries of which my favorite is Jean-Léon Gérôme's:
If Julius Caesar was a solid man, Goldsworthy’s book is a solid biography. The author follows a very orderly chronological line, expanding, when necessary, with elucidatory explanations of social, political or military structures. I welcomed these because they help in abridging the gap of understanding that arises when traveling in one’s mind through historical times. Goldsworthy had to fill-in the knowledge holes and, probably more difficult, empty them of Hollywood debris.
Goldsworthy’s style is very clear and clean. One wonders if he may be have been smitten by Caesar´s own, who although writing at a time when Cicero was stripping the traditional oratory style of its grandiloquence, produced an even more factual and limpid style. The author remains somewhat detached and only in a few occasions does he venture to make comparisons with later military figures and draw judgments. His is certainly the account of a historian, keeping a neutral tone and evaluating what we know and admitting what we do not. He shows particular concern and wishes to wash away the pollution produced by popular culture.
Having to keep the same distance as Goldsworthy, one feels at times a bit too removed from such a rich personality. The reading at once awakens our desire to grasp fully this character so that we can admire or hate him, while keeping him removed and remote.
The cover chosen for most editions befits the content of this book: a stony and captivating view of Caesar’s face, but as a fragment.
This book has earned five solid stars.
But please note that I would give six stars to another version that suited my imagination beautifully -- the one by Goscinny and Uderzo in their Asterix saga.
Gaius Julius Caesar was a solid personality. He was a devoted son, a courageous soldier and astute commander. As a resourceful engineer he built bridges across the Rhine that held the footsteps of his soldiers but shook the minds of the Germanic tribes. He was a worthy husband but also expected a worthy wife, becoming a determined divorcee as his wife had to be above suspicion. Married or not, he was also a gallant philanderer who chose well, as his penchant for the women of other senators or his picking of a legendary beauty indicates. He was a loving father to his dear Julia even if he married her with political aims to someone twice her age. He had to know what was right for her as she did fall deeply in love with Pompey, her magnificent husband. His writing became the textbook of generals in posterity providing a tool for success for figures who further changed history, and we can think of Napoleon. His clemency was also notorious, and he seemed to have relished his power most, not in punishing but in forgiving. As a reformist politician, Caesar realized that if the Roman society had to change, the core revision had to involve land laws because everything else was grounded there. His reforms also extended to the calendar. He synchronized it anew with the sun, in an almost perfect convention that lasted for about sixteen centuries. As a dictator he changed the concept of his position from the Roman elected nomination for a maximum of five years, to the fuller, more modern and more odious powers. And last but not least, he was the brave and resolute prey of one of the most famous assassinations in history.
His death features as the main plot in Shakespeare’s tragedy which coined the essence of treason in the: “Et tu, Brute?”. This death even becomes the first chapter in Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician, as if the orator’s life could only be understood in reference to the figure of Julius Caesar. And this death has inspired the palette of many visionaries of which my favorite is Jean-Léon Gérôme's:
If Julius Caesar was a solid man, Goldsworthy’s book is a solid biography. The author follows a very orderly chronological line, expanding, when necessary, with elucidatory explanations of social, political or military structures. I welcomed these because they help in abridging the gap of understanding that arises when traveling in one’s mind through historical times. Goldsworthy had to fill-in the knowledge holes and, probably more difficult, empty them of Hollywood debris.
Goldsworthy’s style is very clear and clean. One wonders if he may be have been smitten by Caesar´s own, who although writing at a time when Cicero was stripping the traditional oratory style of its grandiloquence, produced an even more factual and limpid style. The author remains somewhat detached and only in a few occasions does he venture to make comparisons with later military figures and draw judgments. His is certainly the account of a historian, keeping a neutral tone and evaluating what we know and admitting what we do not. He shows particular concern and wishes to wash away the pollution produced by popular culture.
Having to keep the same distance as Goldsworthy, one feels at times a bit too removed from such a rich personality. The reading at once awakens our desire to grasp fully this character so that we can admire or hate him, while keeping him removed and remote.
The cover chosen for most editions befits the content of this book: a stony and captivating view of Caesar’s face, but as a fragment.
This book has earned five solid stars.
But please note that I would give six stars to another version that suited my imagination beautifully -- the one by Goscinny and Uderzo in their Asterix saga.
November 22, 2020
Una estupenda biografía sobre la figura del César, con datos muy contrastados. Es una de las mejores que he leído (en 2007, pero tenía la reseña pendiente) sobre tan interesante personaje histórico.
Aunque la leí en inglés, posteriormente he podido ojear con detalle la traducción al castellano, y me parece que la traductora ha logrado mantener íntegro el espíritu original de las palabras del autor.
Muy, pero que muy recomendable.
Aunque la leí en inglés, posteriormente he podido ojear con detalle la traducción al castellano, y me parece que la traductora ha logrado mantener íntegro el espíritu original de las palabras del autor.
Muy, pero que muy recomendable.
March 17, 2011
I truly enjoyed this book, and find that I'm actually rueful that I no longer have Goldsworthy's excellent biography to look forward to when I arrive home after work. I came to this six-hundred-plus page behemoth with a fair understanding of all the events, names, and places, and thus had originally planned to read it in installments scattered here and there whilst other books, long demanding my attention, received the majority of my time; however, damned if the erudite, illuminative, and fluid prose of the British author didn't suck me in completely, to such a degree that I eventually refused to fight against it anymore and plunged into Caesar in full.
Really, Caesar's is a story that can only get better in the retelling, an astounding tale of a man who combined immense personal charm, a gifted and practical intelligence, astute political sensitivity, a genius for military command, and an effective, demagogic oratory into a whole that, combined with the incredible fortune that seemed to dog his steps throughout the course his eventful life - save for the very end - inexorably propelled him from a shaky start as a youth from a politically average branch of a patrician tribe forced to live by his wits, on the run from the bounty hunters of the dictator Sulla, to the undisputed master of the Roman Republic, without peer after crushing or pardoning all of his enemies and seemingly poised to lead his invincible legions upon another round of conquest against the eastern impertinence of the Parthians. Unwilling to take the ruthless and bloody steps of a Sulla in cleansing the Republic of dangerous malcontents, Caesar - our clement old master in the words of one of the leaders amongst his assassins, Cassius - made the fatal error of trusting too much in the efficacy of his charismatic aura and not enough in the necessity of maintaining republican forms - while damaging too many already bruised egos in the process - and was cut down just prior to embarking upon his eastern campaign. His adopted son Octavian would learn from his forebear's mistakes and successfully orchestrate the illusion (one gratefully embraced by a war-weary citizenry) of a republican restoration whilst crafting the core of an absolute monarchy beneath the principate trappings.
Although the tale of Caesar is a familiar one, I must say that the author provided some fresh insights and analyses to various points in his life, being especially good at making clear to me details from Caesar's youth and early career, including his Asian service under Isauricus. Goldsworthy also brings the Gallic campaigns into a modern light, and his coverage of the underlying causes and colliding personalities that sparked the Civil War is very informative and helpful; plus, the cat-and-mouse maneuvering between Pompey and Caesar leading to the dramatic clash at Pharsalus is told in taut and gripping prose - when the cavalry under Labienus break against Caesar's concealed fourth wall of infantry angled on the right, it's a cathartic release of the tension, even though everyone knows who emerged victorious. What's more, important personages like Cicero and Pompey are given fair and considered judgement, whilst the aristocratic party of Cato, the self-proclaimed Good Men, receive their share of blame for the petty vindictiveness and unyielding principle - which so often butted heads with the underlying reality of the political situation and Caesar's dignitas - that contributed to the inability of Proconsul and Senate to reach some manner of compromise. Then, of course, there are the bizarre events of the Alexandrian War, a surreal episode that, fresh upon the heels of the cinematic Pharsalus, seems more the material of imaginative fiction than the likely actions of a Roman general who had just achieved a monumental victory over his enemies. Sadly, the author has no compunction about presenting the entire fable of sexy-Cleopatra-in-the-rug as being just that - some sleeping dogs should just be let to lie.
Goldsworthy embodies those infamous British qualities as a historical biographer: an understated wit, a scholastic understanding and academic enthusiasm for his subject, and a slightly dry writing style that doesn't actually detract from the enjoyable readability of the entire affair; indeed, for all of its exhaustive comprehensibility in detailing or exploring the events of Caesar's life, the text is compulsive and absorbing, moving along like a political thriller even though virtually everyone knows how this story will end. Whilst not quite as fun a romp as Tom Holland's smashing Rubicon , its sober tone held more appeal for me whilst imparting a wealth of information; what's more, he dispenses completely with Holland's occasionally irritating modernisms. Indeed, it strikes me that Goldsworthy's examination of the final period of the Roman Republic through the life of its greatest man makes a perfect companion to Holland's journey through the same era looking through the eyes of many - it's a thoroughly readable and enjoyable one-two punch that, in providing depth of coverage in differing-but-complimentary areas, would be difficult to better.
Throughout it all, Goldsworthy earnestly strives for the rigid impartiality of the objective observer, endeavoring to bring the myriad faults and merits, the follies and successes of the oversized egos abutting each other and the Eternal City clearly into the light of our hindsight-blessed day. In particular, he proves reliably thoughtful when called upon to analyze the more infamous amongst Caesar's actions, combing through the sources and considering their intent before applying the lens of logic to deduce the most likely interpretation. He makes every effort to criticize Caesar when such is called for; despite this, however, he cannot but reveal the fact that he greatly admires the subject of his biography and is inclined to view the latter's more questionable actions through as charitable a lens as possible. No matter to this reader, for I must admit to feeling precisely the same way: he possessed a sort of Midas touch, improving any situation merely through his presence, able to instill his followers with a measure of his potent self-confidence and inspire from them a fierce loyalty that was remarkably enduring; a man of such effortless competence that one cannot but marvel at how he consistently achieved what must have seemed, at the outset, beyond the realm of the possible. I have usually held Augustus in a greater esteem due to his political genius in bringing the civil wars to an end and crafting an imperial structure that would hold for centuries; however, Goldsworthy has succeeded in giving the venerable adoptive father a further boost - how can you forget Caesar at the Sambre, or his unheard of mercy towards the defeated Pompeians? - such that I can no longer determine whose form tops the other's, or stands taller on that lofty Roman perch.
Really, Caesar's is a story that can only get better in the retelling, an astounding tale of a man who combined immense personal charm, a gifted and practical intelligence, astute political sensitivity, a genius for military command, and an effective, demagogic oratory into a whole that, combined with the incredible fortune that seemed to dog his steps throughout the course his eventful life - save for the very end - inexorably propelled him from a shaky start as a youth from a politically average branch of a patrician tribe forced to live by his wits, on the run from the bounty hunters of the dictator Sulla, to the undisputed master of the Roman Republic, without peer after crushing or pardoning all of his enemies and seemingly poised to lead his invincible legions upon another round of conquest against the eastern impertinence of the Parthians. Unwilling to take the ruthless and bloody steps of a Sulla in cleansing the Republic of dangerous malcontents, Caesar - our clement old master in the words of one of the leaders amongst his assassins, Cassius - made the fatal error of trusting too much in the efficacy of his charismatic aura and not enough in the necessity of maintaining republican forms - while damaging too many already bruised egos in the process - and was cut down just prior to embarking upon his eastern campaign. His adopted son Octavian would learn from his forebear's mistakes and successfully orchestrate the illusion (one gratefully embraced by a war-weary citizenry) of a republican restoration whilst crafting the core of an absolute monarchy beneath the principate trappings.
Although the tale of Caesar is a familiar one, I must say that the author provided some fresh insights and analyses to various points in his life, being especially good at making clear to me details from Caesar's youth and early career, including his Asian service under Isauricus. Goldsworthy also brings the Gallic campaigns into a modern light, and his coverage of the underlying causes and colliding personalities that sparked the Civil War is very informative and helpful; plus, the cat-and-mouse maneuvering between Pompey and Caesar leading to the dramatic clash at Pharsalus is told in taut and gripping prose - when the cavalry under Labienus break against Caesar's concealed fourth wall of infantry angled on the right, it's a cathartic release of the tension, even though everyone knows who emerged victorious. What's more, important personages like Cicero and Pompey are given fair and considered judgement, whilst the aristocratic party of Cato, the self-proclaimed Good Men, receive their share of blame for the petty vindictiveness and unyielding principle - which so often butted heads with the underlying reality of the political situation and Caesar's dignitas - that contributed to the inability of Proconsul and Senate to reach some manner of compromise. Then, of course, there are the bizarre events of the Alexandrian War, a surreal episode that, fresh upon the heels of the cinematic Pharsalus, seems more the material of imaginative fiction than the likely actions of a Roman general who had just achieved a monumental victory over his enemies. Sadly, the author has no compunction about presenting the entire fable of sexy-Cleopatra-in-the-rug as being just that - some sleeping dogs should just be let to lie.
Goldsworthy embodies those infamous British qualities as a historical biographer: an understated wit, a scholastic understanding and academic enthusiasm for his subject, and a slightly dry writing style that doesn't actually detract from the enjoyable readability of the entire affair; indeed, for all of its exhaustive comprehensibility in detailing or exploring the events of Caesar's life, the text is compulsive and absorbing, moving along like a political thriller even though virtually everyone knows how this story will end. Whilst not quite as fun a romp as Tom Holland's smashing Rubicon , its sober tone held more appeal for me whilst imparting a wealth of information; what's more, he dispenses completely with Holland's occasionally irritating modernisms. Indeed, it strikes me that Goldsworthy's examination of the final period of the Roman Republic through the life of its greatest man makes a perfect companion to Holland's journey through the same era looking through the eyes of many - it's a thoroughly readable and enjoyable one-two punch that, in providing depth of coverage in differing-but-complimentary areas, would be difficult to better.
Throughout it all, Goldsworthy earnestly strives for the rigid impartiality of the objective observer, endeavoring to bring the myriad faults and merits, the follies and successes of the oversized egos abutting each other and the Eternal City clearly into the light of our hindsight-blessed day. In particular, he proves reliably thoughtful when called upon to analyze the more infamous amongst Caesar's actions, combing through the sources and considering their intent before applying the lens of logic to deduce the most likely interpretation. He makes every effort to criticize Caesar when such is called for; despite this, however, he cannot but reveal the fact that he greatly admires the subject of his biography and is inclined to view the latter's more questionable actions through as charitable a lens as possible. No matter to this reader, for I must admit to feeling precisely the same way: he possessed a sort of Midas touch, improving any situation merely through his presence, able to instill his followers with a measure of his potent self-confidence and inspire from them a fierce loyalty that was remarkably enduring; a man of such effortless competence that one cannot but marvel at how he consistently achieved what must have seemed, at the outset, beyond the realm of the possible. I have usually held Augustus in a greater esteem due to his political genius in bringing the civil wars to an end and crafting an imperial structure that would hold for centuries; however, Goldsworthy has succeeded in giving the venerable adoptive father a further boost - how can you forget Caesar at the Sambre, or his unheard of mercy towards the defeated Pompeians? - such that I can no longer determine whose form tops the other's, or stands taller on that lofty Roman perch.
January 15, 2024
True Roman.
As author Adrian Goldsworthy says, Caius Julius Caesar is the most famous Roman to ever have lived. He is perhaps the most famous man in history. He was a charismatic leader of men, a serial seducer of women, a brilliant politician and a military genius. His rise to power was immense, his decision making, determination and consistency are wonders to behold. He delivered some of the most spectacular victories on the battle field in history and in an age of violence, showed incredible foresight, forgiveness and clemency. Goldsworthy’s book brings Caesar back to life in a much needed biography.
This book is incredible. Having first read it when it was published, I have returned after 18 years. Goldsworthy is a fantastic writer, understands his topic well and brings the whole world of Caesar to life. To understand Caesar, who was a man of his time, one has to understand the ancient world in the first century BC. According to folklore, Rome was a state around 700 years old at that point, with political structures, institutions, traditions and families going back over 500 years. It was the dominant power in the Mediterranean and on the rise. However, at the same time the Republic Caesar was born into was corrupt, dysfunctional, inefficient and dying. Times had become violent, civil wars and revolts constantly raged and many of Rome’s best and most talented sons were constantly being murdered. Tiberius Gracchus and the later his younger brother Caius were two of the first to try and resolved these problems. The senate would not have this and they both met violent ends. Sulla and Marius two talents from the next generation became locked in a civil war which ripped the heart of the empire. Sulla became dictator, but after years of oppression and murder, eventually retired to his country estate. Caesar called this ‘politically inept’.
Into this world, in around 100 BC Caesar was born. His father from the Juli one of the most distinguished and aristocratic families of Ancient Rome. Believed the be descended from the ancient kings of Alba Longa and Jupiter himself. However, the families fortunes had been driven down following the civil war, as Caesar’s aunt had been married to Marius, the loser. At first he was poor. But he was well educated, full of energy and intelligent. The legends began immediately. He became a priest of Jupiter, but was ordered by Sulla to divorce his wife, which he refused. Even questioning Sulla’s annulment of his own marriage. He even attempted prosecuted some of Sulla’s men in the courts. This was unsuccessful. He gained recognition for saving the life of another citizen in the siege of Mytilene where he received the civic crown. After showing bravery in the battlefields, he gained a quaestorship in 69 BC and consulship in 60 BC and then managed to reconcile two colossus rivals Pompey and Crassus, form the First Triumvirate. He then went to Gaul, a land roughly where France and Belgium is today, made up of similar but fractured city states and tribes. This is where he famously subdued the region, played the classic divide and conquer and won victory after victory.
The Siege of Avaricum where he finally destroyed Vercingetorix was a masterclass. Caesar recorded his victories in his book, The Gallic Wars. Also a beautiful piece of literature. His exploits have been studied my military thinker ever since. Most famously by Napoleon who wrote much about them in exile on Saint Helena. This was too much for the senate, men like Cato (much hated when alive) hated Caesar, others like Pompey also disliked the prestige he was gaining and so they decided to recall him and not allow him to stand for consul again. This meant no triumphs, no recognition, no legions and would mean that Caesar would have to return to Rome a private citizen and thus liable to prosecution. The vultures weee circling to prosecute him for his actions in his first consulship. Usual, with most being acquitted and at the worst exile. This was not an option for Caesar. As such, through hubris they backed Caesar into a corner. He could only Cross the Rubicon.
The Civil War began, the Pompeians were eventually destroyed and Pompey himself stabbed to death on a boat under the Egyptian King Ptolemy XIII’s orders. Caesar was distraught at the death of his former son in law, friend and political rival. It was here that he met the enigmatic and charming Cleopatra. In destroying a revolt in modern day Turkey he proclaimed the famous ‘veni, vidi, vici.’ I came, I saw, I conquered.’ Caesar as a dictator was competent ruler, who issued vital reforms which suitable all classes as he tried not to focus on one group. But no one knew what his end goal was and if he would give up power like Sulla. He was a monarch in all but name. Some such as Marcus Brutus, who saw Caesar as a father figure, could not get over this. Having been on the side of the Pompeians in the civil war, Caesar had given him clemency and praetorship. It was the plan to make him consul in 41 BC. But it was all not to be, pressure from his name, his ancestor had famously expelled the last king of Rome and his uncle was the conservative Cato who had recently killed himself rather than accept the power and clemency of Caesar. When he was assassinated on three Ides of March, it was sudden and unexpected. Only 7% of senators being involved in the conspiracy. Within three years they would all be dead.
Goldsworthy wanted to write this book as if he were writing the biography of a nineteenth century statesman and for me this was the secret to his success. The book is truly excellent as a result. However, he notes there are difficulties. For example, the year of Caesar’s birth is actually debatable. In both Suetonius and Plutarch’s histories of the man the starting passages have not survived. We will never know what Caesar wanted to ultimately achieve and perhaps neither did he. What Goldsworthy highlights that is sad is that we will never know more about Caesar than we do know. Archaeology has supported his accounts in the Gallic Wars, but it is unlikely to give us more information, likewise we will not uncover any ‘lost texts’. Caesar was hugely influential, as I have said above, read my military strategists and academics alike for centuries. Kaiser and Tsar are both titles that derive from his name, both linked to the inheritance of Rome. He has divided opinion, some love him some hate him. But what is true is that he was an individual, a trailblazer. The first to wear long sleeves and a belt with his toga, the one who forgave his enemies, who outsmarted the rest and did all this whilst suffering epilepsy. This was an amazing, well written book. Goldsworthy explains what we know and don’t and also why he thinks a point is most likely. He explains the relationships Caesar had with those around them and expels other ‘well known’ myths. I will read this again in time to come.
As author Adrian Goldsworthy says, Caius Julius Caesar is the most famous Roman to ever have lived. He is perhaps the most famous man in history. He was a charismatic leader of men, a serial seducer of women, a brilliant politician and a military genius. His rise to power was immense, his decision making, determination and consistency are wonders to behold. He delivered some of the most spectacular victories on the battle field in history and in an age of violence, showed incredible foresight, forgiveness and clemency. Goldsworthy’s book brings Caesar back to life in a much needed biography.
This book is incredible. Having first read it when it was published, I have returned after 18 years. Goldsworthy is a fantastic writer, understands his topic well and brings the whole world of Caesar to life. To understand Caesar, who was a man of his time, one has to understand the ancient world in the first century BC. According to folklore, Rome was a state around 700 years old at that point, with political structures, institutions, traditions and families going back over 500 years. It was the dominant power in the Mediterranean and on the rise. However, at the same time the Republic Caesar was born into was corrupt, dysfunctional, inefficient and dying. Times had become violent, civil wars and revolts constantly raged and many of Rome’s best and most talented sons were constantly being murdered. Tiberius Gracchus and the later his younger brother Caius were two of the first to try and resolved these problems. The senate would not have this and they both met violent ends. Sulla and Marius two talents from the next generation became locked in a civil war which ripped the heart of the empire. Sulla became dictator, but after years of oppression and murder, eventually retired to his country estate. Caesar called this ‘politically inept’.
Into this world, in around 100 BC Caesar was born. His father from the Juli one of the most distinguished and aristocratic families of Ancient Rome. Believed the be descended from the ancient kings of Alba Longa and Jupiter himself. However, the families fortunes had been driven down following the civil war, as Caesar’s aunt had been married to Marius, the loser. At first he was poor. But he was well educated, full of energy and intelligent. The legends began immediately. He became a priest of Jupiter, but was ordered by Sulla to divorce his wife, which he refused. Even questioning Sulla’s annulment of his own marriage. He even attempted prosecuted some of Sulla’s men in the courts. This was unsuccessful. He gained recognition for saving the life of another citizen in the siege of Mytilene where he received the civic crown. After showing bravery in the battlefields, he gained a quaestorship in 69 BC and consulship in 60 BC and then managed to reconcile two colossus rivals Pompey and Crassus, form the First Triumvirate. He then went to Gaul, a land roughly where France and Belgium is today, made up of similar but fractured city states and tribes. This is where he famously subdued the region, played the classic divide and conquer and won victory after victory.
The Siege of Avaricum where he finally destroyed Vercingetorix was a masterclass. Caesar recorded his victories in his book, The Gallic Wars. Also a beautiful piece of literature. His exploits have been studied my military thinker ever since. Most famously by Napoleon who wrote much about them in exile on Saint Helena. This was too much for the senate, men like Cato (much hated when alive) hated Caesar, others like Pompey also disliked the prestige he was gaining and so they decided to recall him and not allow him to stand for consul again. This meant no triumphs, no recognition, no legions and would mean that Caesar would have to return to Rome a private citizen and thus liable to prosecution. The vultures weee circling to prosecute him for his actions in his first consulship. Usual, with most being acquitted and at the worst exile. This was not an option for Caesar. As such, through hubris they backed Caesar into a corner. He could only Cross the Rubicon.
The Civil War began, the Pompeians were eventually destroyed and Pompey himself stabbed to death on a boat under the Egyptian King Ptolemy XIII’s orders. Caesar was distraught at the death of his former son in law, friend and political rival. It was here that he met the enigmatic and charming Cleopatra. In destroying a revolt in modern day Turkey he proclaimed the famous ‘veni, vidi, vici.’ I came, I saw, I conquered.’ Caesar as a dictator was competent ruler, who issued vital reforms which suitable all classes as he tried not to focus on one group. But no one knew what his end goal was and if he would give up power like Sulla. He was a monarch in all but name. Some such as Marcus Brutus, who saw Caesar as a father figure, could not get over this. Having been on the side of the Pompeians in the civil war, Caesar had given him clemency and praetorship. It was the plan to make him consul in 41 BC. But it was all not to be, pressure from his name, his ancestor had famously expelled the last king of Rome and his uncle was the conservative Cato who had recently killed himself rather than accept the power and clemency of Caesar. When he was assassinated on three Ides of March, it was sudden and unexpected. Only 7% of senators being involved in the conspiracy. Within three years they would all be dead.
Goldsworthy wanted to write this book as if he were writing the biography of a nineteenth century statesman and for me this was the secret to his success. The book is truly excellent as a result. However, he notes there are difficulties. For example, the year of Caesar’s birth is actually debatable. In both Suetonius and Plutarch’s histories of the man the starting passages have not survived. We will never know what Caesar wanted to ultimately achieve and perhaps neither did he. What Goldsworthy highlights that is sad is that we will never know more about Caesar than we do know. Archaeology has supported his accounts in the Gallic Wars, but it is unlikely to give us more information, likewise we will not uncover any ‘lost texts’. Caesar was hugely influential, as I have said above, read my military strategists and academics alike for centuries. Kaiser and Tsar are both titles that derive from his name, both linked to the inheritance of Rome. He has divided opinion, some love him some hate him. But what is true is that he was an individual, a trailblazer. The first to wear long sleeves and a belt with his toga, the one who forgave his enemies, who outsmarted the rest and did all this whilst suffering epilepsy. This was an amazing, well written book. Goldsworthy explains what we know and don’t and also why he thinks a point is most likely. He explains the relationships Caesar had with those around them and expels other ‘well known’ myths. I will read this again in time to come.
February 16, 2025
3.5
Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus is a difficult book to rate. Objectively, it is an outstanding biography, well-written and thoroughly researched. However, Goldsworthy is a military historian, and military history is not a primary interest of mine.
Goldsworthy divides the book into three segments. The first examines Caesar's early life through his rise to Consul. It is exceptionally well done and provides the historical and cultural context needed to understand Caesar. The second section focuses on Caesar as a General during his military campaigns in Gaul. ( I skimmed this part of the book.)The concluding section chronicles the Civil War, the Republic's demise, Caesar's dictatorship, and assassination.
Julius Caesar is a historical figure who has been lionized and vilified by historians, novelists, and playwrights—Goldsworthy attempts to step back and provide a detailed, factual overview of his life and times. While I felt he admired Caesar's intelligence, military prowess, and clemency policy, he also saw his flaws. He portrayed his hubris, ruthlessness, and womanizing, as well as his determination to take supreme power regardless of the cost.
What surprised me was Goldsworthy's ambivalence about Caesar's role in the Republic's demise. He portrayed the Republic as teetering on the brink before Caesar crossed the Rubicon and only truly meaningful to idealists and the entrenched aristocracy whose interests it protected. Goldsworthy analyzed Caesar's policies during his dictatorship, which, although made behind closed doors, benefitted large segments of the population. He demonstrates that Caesar's hubris and the Roman aversion to Kingship were central to his downfall.
Overall, it is an interesting read and a must for fans of military history.
Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus is a difficult book to rate. Objectively, it is an outstanding biography, well-written and thoroughly researched. However, Goldsworthy is a military historian, and military history is not a primary interest of mine.
Goldsworthy divides the book into three segments. The first examines Caesar's early life through his rise to Consul. It is exceptionally well done and provides the historical and cultural context needed to understand Caesar. The second section focuses on Caesar as a General during his military campaigns in Gaul. ( I skimmed this part of the book.)The concluding section chronicles the Civil War, the Republic's demise, Caesar's dictatorship, and assassination.
Julius Caesar is a historical figure who has been lionized and vilified by historians, novelists, and playwrights—Goldsworthy attempts to step back and provide a detailed, factual overview of his life and times. While I felt he admired Caesar's intelligence, military prowess, and clemency policy, he also saw his flaws. He portrayed his hubris, ruthlessness, and womanizing, as well as his determination to take supreme power regardless of the cost.
What surprised me was Goldsworthy's ambivalence about Caesar's role in the Republic's demise. He portrayed the Republic as teetering on the brink before Caesar crossed the Rubicon and only truly meaningful to idealists and the entrenched aristocracy whose interests it protected. Goldsworthy analyzed Caesar's policies during his dictatorship, which, although made behind closed doors, benefitted large segments of the population. He demonstrates that Caesar's hubris and the Roman aversion to Kingship were central to his downfall.
Overall, it is an interesting read and a must for fans of military history.
April 10, 2023
This book is only 580 ish pages but it has packed so much detail it seems like will never end. And I’m doing audio. It is extremely thorough lots of research went into this book. I feel confident that any reader would learn something new by the end.
3/something this book lies! It has to be a 1,000 page book because I am STILL listening to it and it's been three days. I can't even keep up anymore. I know his story I know these names but there is so much detail and it's so comprehensive that there is no way I'm absorbing much. This is one of those books that I should have started smaller before trying this one
ROYALTY READS PROJECT
3/something this book lies! It has to be a 1,000 page book because I am STILL listening to it and it's been three days. I can't even keep up anymore. I know his story I know these names but there is so much detail and it's so comprehensive that there is no way I'm absorbing much. This is one of those books that I should have started smaller before trying this one
ROYALTY READS PROJECT
December 13, 2013
Adrian Goldsworthy's book, Caesar, is another one of those great books that you cannot afford to miss. Following on from his excellent run of books; The Punic Wars and In The Name of Rome, this new title is a great addition to anyone's library.
The tale of Julius Caesar has been told before many times but I doubt as well as this in recent times. The research and story telling is exceptional. I found the book easy to read although it is quite detailed in regards to the political and social events and background that made up Rome during Caesar's period.
The accounts of Caesar's military campaigns were well told and presented with a number of basic maps to assist the reader in following the action. The author presented the facts covering Caesar's life in an un-biased way and left it to the reader to make up his own mind in regards to those controversial events in Caesar's life.
The book is about 520 pages in narrative text along with a number of black & white photographs and maps. Overall this is a good book and I am sure anyone who has an interest or passion for this period of history or for Julius Caesar will enjoy this book immensely.
The tale of Julius Caesar has been told before many times but I doubt as well as this in recent times. The research and story telling is exceptional. I found the book easy to read although it is quite detailed in regards to the political and social events and background that made up Rome during Caesar's period.
The accounts of Caesar's military campaigns were well told and presented with a number of basic maps to assist the reader in following the action. The author presented the facts covering Caesar's life in an un-biased way and left it to the reader to make up his own mind in regards to those controversial events in Caesar's life.
The book is about 520 pages in narrative text along with a number of black & white photographs and maps. Overall this is a good book and I am sure anyone who has an interest or passion for this period of history or for Julius Caesar will enjoy this book immensely.
November 14, 2016
Reliable, authoritative and... safe?
With Adrian Goldsworthy you know you're in competent academic hands (unlike, for example, 'popular' historians like Bettany Hughes or Tom Holland) and so can rely on his reading of the sources and the scholarship on Caesar. But this isn't by any means a dry, academic tome - Goldsworthy writes well for a lay audience and wears his (intense) learning very lightly. His admiration for Caesar shines through (something which, perhaps, he has to dampen a little in his academic work?) but this is never hero-worshipping for all that.
He sets Caesar in his time but never allows the political background to overshadow the man. Being Goldsworthy, there is a lot of emphasis on Caesar the general in both Gaul and the civil wars, but he doesn't allow military tactics to take centre stage, and stays with the mind of the man.
I enjoyed this book hugely, but my only tiny criticism is that it's a safe read - if you know anything about Caesar, then there won't be any surprises here: all the sources are reviewed, all the incidents dramatised well. This isn't, of course, Goldsworthy's fault as, after all, Caesar has fascinated for millenia but I guess for me the Christian Meier biography of Caesar is still a personal favourite above this one for the way in which he stretches his reading of Caesar.
So, this is recommended, but read Meier too and compare their views.
With Adrian Goldsworthy you know you're in competent academic hands (unlike, for example, 'popular' historians like Bettany Hughes or Tom Holland) and so can rely on his reading of the sources and the scholarship on Caesar. But this isn't by any means a dry, academic tome - Goldsworthy writes well for a lay audience and wears his (intense) learning very lightly. His admiration for Caesar shines through (something which, perhaps, he has to dampen a little in his academic work?) but this is never hero-worshipping for all that.
He sets Caesar in his time but never allows the political background to overshadow the man. Being Goldsworthy, there is a lot of emphasis on Caesar the general in both Gaul and the civil wars, but he doesn't allow military tactics to take centre stage, and stays with the mind of the man.
I enjoyed this book hugely, but my only tiny criticism is that it's a safe read - if you know anything about Caesar, then there won't be any surprises here: all the sources are reviewed, all the incidents dramatised well. This isn't, of course, Goldsworthy's fault as, after all, Caesar has fascinated for millenia but I guess for me the Christian Meier biography of Caesar is still a personal favourite above this one for the way in which he stretches his reading of Caesar.
So, this is recommended, but read Meier too and compare their views.
April 28, 2020
I came I saw I conquered these are the words of Gaius Julius Caesar the man that created a legacy for the ages!!
Adrian goldsworthy is one of my favourite Roman historians!!! And Caesar is definitely proof of why he is!! The pace and craft of this book was masterful and absolutely brilliant.
No matter how many books I read on Caesar the story’s never get old and just makes me wanna read more about him And Adrians goldsworthy is definitely one you should not miss out on!
Adrian goldsworthy is one of my favourite Roman historians!!! And Caesar is definitely proof of why he is!! The pace and craft of this book was masterful and absolutely brilliant.
No matter how many books I read on Caesar the story’s never get old and just makes me wanna read more about him And Adrians goldsworthy is definitely one you should not miss out on!
August 25, 2020
‘Caesar’ by Adrian Goldsworthy is very comprehensive. The author uses all available historical sources and puts in order the known information into a cohesive timeline. The result is an excellent biography. Goldsworthy often compares two or more sources together as well, noting all of the sources and guessing sometimes which one is the more likely version if they diverge.
Caesar himself was helpful to later researchers of his life in that he published several books about his military campaigns which have survived millennia (literacy rules!). Archeologists have found the actual sites from debris and descriptions. Caesar usually included everything, softening very few incidents or mistakes. Apparently he omitted some events of personal courage, but maybe involved admirers were embellishing real or imagined stories.
However, Caesar was clearly an amazing leader in both personal charisma and in military finesse whether his contemporaries loved or hated him. The book explains in general with some details, and maps (but omitting the showing of topography like hills or rivers, unfortunately), Caesar’s many military battles and troop maneuvers with tribes in Gaul (France), Spain, Africa, near Asia and what would be the peoples of countries in and around Germany (Macedonia, Belgium etc.). He also tried to invade England! Romans lived to instigate fights and defend in constant warfare. I am not exaggerating. If the top politicians of Rome were not marching to conquer foreign countries, they were marching to do battle with each other.
Caesar usually juggled military campaigns and Roman politics at the same time, whether it was the politics of handling conquered tribes or of Rome’s common people and top 1%. He was a genuine multitasker phenomenon and a genius of military tactics and political maneuvers - a brainy intellectual with the energy and physical strength of someone years younger. Jealousy, imho, is the real cause of his murder, although the murderers claimed they feared Caesar’s growing political power. Rome was infested with power-seeking families and men for centuries! Intense violence in Rome was often begun by Roman military leaders who invaded Rome with their personal armies trying to kill political enemies! Assassination attempts were often threatened and made. Most politicians had personal bodyguards.
In Rome, politics was all about every Senator being for himself. Caesar was one of the many of this ilk, but he was attempting to make politics more fair and safe, changing laws and proposing more equitable management of the distribution of land and the just enforcement of laws (other historical Romans worked at making life better for commoners too). He promoted free speech, seeing that his writing as well as his usual behavior, whatever the narrative of his works or that distributed by his enemies, the description of his life would work in his favor. Being a military genius was not something a man could fake, after all, being seen by thousands of troops and in having the spoils of war to display on his return. Most common Romans were fans.
The book begins with Caesar’s early life and ends with his assassination. Rome was a turbulent City in Caesar’s lifetime! If Politics was a food, it was one which all important Romans had to eat wholeheartedly three times a day with constant intermittent snacks! Military prowess was important for all Roman politicians. The path to dominating Rome politically was primarily through having and keeping your own personal military force. To maintain the respect of their military troops, leaders had to be educated and landowners, very wealthy and male, plus most often connected by birth or marriage to the top 1% aristocracy - old founding families of Rome who normally had fantastic wealth and who claimed a god sired their founder. Caesar claimed Venus founded his family. However, inexplicably, when Caesar had finally gathered all of the threads of Roman power in his hands, he dismissed his bodyguards!
We all know how this ended. It was a little bit like how Shakespeare imagined, but the killers, backed up in the conspiracy of the murder by sixty - sixty! - senators, were more selfish with complicated personal motives and grudges. It certainly wasn’t a case of morally superior folks taking down a singularly terrible person! Goldsworthy reveals all. Caesar at age fifty-six definitely had become a dictator with all power voted him by the common people and by publicly kowtowing or genuinely admiring senators. But while Caesar demanded recognition of his dominance, his actions also showed a lifelong commitment to duty and justice and fairness. He wasn’t a bad person, gentle reader, for a Roman of 100-44 BC.
The book has an extensive Bibliography. It also has a very useful Chronology, a Glossary, an Abbreviation list, huge Notes and Index sections. I highly recommend this book for history and military campaign fans.
Caesar himself was helpful to later researchers of his life in that he published several books about his military campaigns which have survived millennia (literacy rules!). Archeologists have found the actual sites from debris and descriptions. Caesar usually included everything, softening very few incidents or mistakes. Apparently he omitted some events of personal courage, but maybe involved admirers were embellishing real or imagined stories.
However, Caesar was clearly an amazing leader in both personal charisma and in military finesse whether his contemporaries loved or hated him. The book explains in general with some details, and maps (but omitting the showing of topography like hills or rivers, unfortunately), Caesar’s many military battles and troop maneuvers with tribes in Gaul (France), Spain, Africa, near Asia and what would be the peoples of countries in and around Germany (Macedonia, Belgium etc.). He also tried to invade England! Romans lived to instigate fights and defend in constant warfare. I am not exaggerating. If the top politicians of Rome were not marching to conquer foreign countries, they were marching to do battle with each other.
Caesar usually juggled military campaigns and Roman politics at the same time, whether it was the politics of handling conquered tribes or of Rome’s common people and top 1%. He was a genuine multitasker phenomenon and a genius of military tactics and political maneuvers - a brainy intellectual with the energy and physical strength of someone years younger. Jealousy, imho, is the real cause of his murder, although the murderers claimed they feared Caesar’s growing political power. Rome was infested with power-seeking families and men for centuries! Intense violence in Rome was often begun by Roman military leaders who invaded Rome with their personal armies trying to kill political enemies! Assassination attempts were often threatened and made. Most politicians had personal bodyguards.
In Rome, politics was all about every Senator being for himself. Caesar was one of the many of this ilk, but he was attempting to make politics more fair and safe, changing laws and proposing more equitable management of the distribution of land and the just enforcement of laws (other historical Romans worked at making life better for commoners too). He promoted free speech, seeing that his writing as well as his usual behavior, whatever the narrative of his works or that distributed by his enemies, the description of his life would work in his favor. Being a military genius was not something a man could fake, after all, being seen by thousands of troops and in having the spoils of war to display on his return. Most common Romans were fans.
The book begins with Caesar’s early life and ends with his assassination. Rome was a turbulent City in Caesar’s lifetime! If Politics was a food, it was one which all important Romans had to eat wholeheartedly three times a day with constant intermittent snacks! Military prowess was important for all Roman politicians. The path to dominating Rome politically was primarily through having and keeping your own personal military force. To maintain the respect of their military troops, leaders had to be educated and landowners, very wealthy and male, plus most often connected by birth or marriage to the top 1% aristocracy - old founding families of Rome who normally had fantastic wealth and who claimed a god sired their founder. Caesar claimed Venus founded his family. However, inexplicably, when Caesar had finally gathered all of the threads of Roman power in his hands, he dismissed his bodyguards!
We all know how this ended. It was a little bit like how Shakespeare imagined, but the killers, backed up in the conspiracy of the murder by sixty - sixty! - senators, were more selfish with complicated personal motives and grudges. It certainly wasn’t a case of morally superior folks taking down a singularly terrible person! Goldsworthy reveals all. Caesar at age fifty-six definitely had become a dictator with all power voted him by the common people and by publicly kowtowing or genuinely admiring senators. But while Caesar demanded recognition of his dominance, his actions also showed a lifelong commitment to duty and justice and fairness. He wasn’t a bad person, gentle reader, for a Roman of 100-44 BC.
The book has an extensive Bibliography. It also has a very useful Chronology, a Glossary, an Abbreviation list, huge Notes and Index sections. I highly recommend this book for history and military campaign fans.
November 22, 2020
No sé cómo no he reseñado la que para mí es, sin lugar a dudas, una de las obras claves para entender y conocer el personaje del gran Julio César. Aunque lo leí hace muchos años (lo que me recuerda que a lo mejor sería bueno hacer una relectura algún día) recuerdo que me atrapó desde la primera página.
Adrian Goldsworthy sabe cómo transmitir conocimientos académicamente rigurosos tanto para los estudiosos de la materia como para los que por placer nos acercamos al personaje. La bibliografía utilizada es extensísima y hace mucho incapié en las fuentes, extrayendo de ellas toda la información relevante como el que exprime un limón. No se deja nada en el tintero.
El surtido de mapas es bueno también, cosa que me alegró mucho en su día, porque de otro modo la campaña en la Galia hubiese sido muy confusa de seguir de no haber contado con ellos como referencia.
No puedo parar de aconsejar este libro para todo aquel que quiera acercarse a la figura del Gran Julio. Da igual lo que hayas leído con anterioridad sobre él, este libro merece mucho la pena.
Adrian Goldsworthy sabe cómo transmitir conocimientos académicamente rigurosos tanto para los estudiosos de la materia como para los que por placer nos acercamos al personaje. La bibliografía utilizada es extensísima y hace mucho incapié en las fuentes, extrayendo de ellas toda la información relevante como el que exprime un limón. No se deja nada en el tintero.
El surtido de mapas es bueno también, cosa que me alegró mucho en su día, porque de otro modo la campaña en la Galia hubiese sido muy confusa de seguir de no haber contado con ellos como referencia.
No puedo parar de aconsejar este libro para todo aquel que quiera acercarse a la figura del Gran Julio. Da igual lo que hayas leído con anterioridad sobre él, este libro merece mucho la pena.
July 6, 2014
Goldsworthy writes with flair and with a good command of the subject matter, doing an excellent job of bringing to life one of the most celebrated and vilified characters of ancient and Western history. He paints an excellent portrait of both Caesar and the times he lived in. Goldsworthy’s treatment of Caesar’s campaigns, especially the Civil War, is engaging and lively. Goldsworthy does a great job of both stripping away the myth of Caesar and conveying the drama of his times.
In some cases, Caesar’s career was quite conventional for the time period. He had no grand plans for reforming the republic, but was still incredibly ambitious and talented, a rational statesman and a superb military leader. He was both personally and politically courageous: he stood up to the notorious dictator Sulla, was known for his battlefield heroism, led his troops from the front and spared the lives of Catiline’s conspirators. He was a charismatic figure able to compel his troops to legendary loyalty. He was very vain and still very good-humored. He also never shrank from a challenge. He was loyal to his troops and a womanizer of epic proportions. He was willing to fight a civil war to protect his honor, smashing the warring factions and ensuring they answered only to him (except when they were stabbing him to death).
Given the lack of sources on some periods of Caesar’s life, Goldsworthy is sometimes forced to speculate, but it is never excessive and always well-argued. A strong and well-written biography.
In some cases, Caesar’s career was quite conventional for the time period. He had no grand plans for reforming the republic, but was still incredibly ambitious and talented, a rational statesman and a superb military leader. He was both personally and politically courageous: he stood up to the notorious dictator Sulla, was known for his battlefield heroism, led his troops from the front and spared the lives of Catiline’s conspirators. He was a charismatic figure able to compel his troops to legendary loyalty. He was very vain and still very good-humored. He also never shrank from a challenge. He was loyal to his troops and a womanizer of epic proportions. He was willing to fight a civil war to protect his honor, smashing the warring factions and ensuring they answered only to him (except when they were stabbing him to death).
Given the lack of sources on some periods of Caesar’s life, Goldsworthy is sometimes forced to speculate, but it is never excessive and always well-argued. A strong and well-written biography.
July 7, 2019
******SPOILER ALERT: Caesar DIES*********
Adrian Goldsworthy did an excellent job on his book, which covers almost all aspect of Caesar's life from a lover to an emperor. I really enjoyed Caesar: Life of a Colossus, since it was a better biography of Caesar than my previous reads. Caesar was indeed a colossus of his time and this book rightfully portrays him as such.
Adrian Goldsworthy did an excellent job on his book, which covers almost all aspect of Caesar's life from a lover to an emperor. I really enjoyed Caesar: Life of a Colossus, since it was a better biography of Caesar than my previous reads. Caesar was indeed a colossus of his time and this book rightfully portrays him as such.
September 26, 2015
This is a very thorough life of Caesar from soup to nuts, as it were. Any history about a figure or events as distant in time as that of the subject of this book is going to necessitate either a certain amount of speculation on the part of the historian, or regular admissions regarding the final unknowability of any number of particulars. In this case, Goldsworthy picks the latter, arguably more truthful path. Where he speculates, he does so cautiously and logically, presenting ideas that are reasonable--if often debatable. However, he is quick to point out that is what he is doing when he goes about it, which in my estimation often makes his own interpretations all the more valid in that, if nothing else, the author is taking even his own ideas with a grain of salt. Lay history readers might find the refrain ("we cannot know for certain" and "we will never know" or words to that effect) repetitive pretty quickly in this account, but whether this is the first book someone will read on the subject or not, that admonition bears repeating. For those who will continue reading, it's worth bearing in mind that other historians may not be so scrupulous detailing the difference between what they think and what they know, and Goldworthy's example serves as a good road sign for when that kind of thing is happening. If this is the only book one is going to read on the subject then it instructs the reader on how to think about historical facts in the remote past that are, ultimately, impossible to prove.
Goldsworthy doesn't just give us the life of Caesar, but takes pains to locate him in the continuity of Roman culture and politics in which he lived, rose to power and died. I often feel biographies fail to do that, giving the reader the impression that the subject's life was more of a "one-off" than it really was. Caesar's was, of course, an exceptional life in an exceptional time, but his was one of several comparable lives. Goldsworthy does not give those other historical figures short-shrift in his biography which, in the long run, adds to our understanding of the subject by relating him to his time and contemporaries, not just presenting that one figure alone.
The other major recommendation I have regarding this book is a somewhat personal one. I get an undue and maybe even obsessive pleasure from a well composed, annotated bibliography. It acts as a kind of "shopping list" for me, and Goldsworthy's is particularly tantalizing. Aside from pointing out the nature and range of his research, it gives readers a nice place to go for further information. I love finding those texts that a writer refers to often as they are frequently also worth reading. In this case, I particularly enjoyed that he spent time describing the way Caesar has been portrayed in fiction--from Shakespeare through modern film and television--in an annotated way. That's the kind of thing that many academics might neglect. At least, I've never seen it given much attention in other ancient histories. In the case of someone like Caesar, the contemporary (pop?) understanding of the man is undeniable. To ignore it is to leave a hole in our understanding.
Overall, 4 of 5 stars is well earned, and maybe even a little cheap on my side. I'm deducting a star for what amounts to little more than personal reasons having to do with what Goldsworthy chose to focus on as opposed to what I wanted to read about, and that's not entirely fair. As a biography there's probably not much to beat this installment.
Goldsworthy doesn't just give us the life of Caesar, but takes pains to locate him in the continuity of Roman culture and politics in which he lived, rose to power and died. I often feel biographies fail to do that, giving the reader the impression that the subject's life was more of a "one-off" than it really was. Caesar's was, of course, an exceptional life in an exceptional time, but his was one of several comparable lives. Goldsworthy does not give those other historical figures short-shrift in his biography which, in the long run, adds to our understanding of the subject by relating him to his time and contemporaries, not just presenting that one figure alone.
The other major recommendation I have regarding this book is a somewhat personal one. I get an undue and maybe even obsessive pleasure from a well composed, annotated bibliography. It acts as a kind of "shopping list" for me, and Goldsworthy's is particularly tantalizing. Aside from pointing out the nature and range of his research, it gives readers a nice place to go for further information. I love finding those texts that a writer refers to often as they are frequently also worth reading. In this case, I particularly enjoyed that he spent time describing the way Caesar has been portrayed in fiction--from Shakespeare through modern film and television--in an annotated way. That's the kind of thing that many academics might neglect. At least, I've never seen it given much attention in other ancient histories. In the case of someone like Caesar, the contemporary (pop?) understanding of the man is undeniable. To ignore it is to leave a hole in our understanding.
Overall, 4 of 5 stars is well earned, and maybe even a little cheap on my side. I'm deducting a star for what amounts to little more than personal reasons having to do with what Goldsworthy chose to focus on as opposed to what I wanted to read about, and that's not entirely fair. As a biography there's probably not much to beat this installment.
October 11, 2009
After reading Colleen McCullough's massive Masters of Rome series, I wanted to know more about Julius Caesar, a man she clearly greatly admires, and to know how her research stacks up against that of professional historians.
Except for a few instances, Goldsworthy's biography of JC confirms the accuracy of McCullough's novels (which he described as "racy," proving that Oxford-trained historians are a rather sheltered lot). Of course, he maintains an academic distance better than the novelist, but on the whole, his portrayal of Caesar -- an ambitious, patriotic, talented Roman -- is sympathetic. He describes Caesar as "amoral" and yet verifies that Caesar largely acted in keeping with the morals and traditions of contemporary Roman society, yet breaking with them significantly by treating his adversaries with generosity and clemency.
Goldsworthy's biography is highly readable, engaging, and thorough. Readers who don't have time to invest in McCullough's novels can get much of the historical information in the biography. What they won't get is a real sense of the man behind all the great exploits, and after reading the biography, I suspect that McCullough largely got Caesar's personality and character right.
Except for a few instances, Goldsworthy's biography of JC confirms the accuracy of McCullough's novels (which he described as "racy," proving that Oxford-trained historians are a rather sheltered lot). Of course, he maintains an academic distance better than the novelist, but on the whole, his portrayal of Caesar -- an ambitious, patriotic, talented Roman -- is sympathetic. He describes Caesar as "amoral" and yet verifies that Caesar largely acted in keeping with the morals and traditions of contemporary Roman society, yet breaking with them significantly by treating his adversaries with generosity and clemency.
Goldsworthy's biography is highly readable, engaging, and thorough. Readers who don't have time to invest in McCullough's novels can get much of the historical information in the biography. What they won't get is a real sense of the man behind all the great exploits, and after reading the biography, I suspect that McCullough largely got Caesar's personality and character right.
February 1, 2014
CAESAR (Life of a Colossus)
by Adrian Goldsworthy
This life of Julius Caesar was originally published (minus subtitle on jacket) as one of Weidenfield's military history tomes back in 2006. With the success of the BBC/HBO TV series “Rome”, it was quickly repackaged and relaunched to cater for a subsequent surge of interest in the founder of Imperial Rome. Arguably, Julius Caesar has always been ancient history's most popular figure. Even contemporary contenders for that distinction – Cleopatra as beauty/queen, Pompey Magnus as fixer/general, Cicero as writer/orator - were more or less satellites of Gaius Caesar of the Julii. What sets him above the other great figures of the day is the breadth of his achievements from the battlefield, to politics to oratory & authorship. Goldsworthy's biography, we are told, is wider in scope than other accounts. Whereas many books concentrate on Caesar the military tactician, others deal with the rise and fall of his dictatorship. What we have here is a life that claims to combine the man's political career with his military campaigns. But is that enough to pad out a full life?
Most biographies succeed or fail neither by strict adherence to fact, nor by spinning the good yarn. Where an author has to dig out hidden truths, then such facts may have something spicy to add. And where the telling of the tale reflects the legendary nature of its protagonist, then the story may benefit from spicier writing. However, built on original research & good writing, a successful biography needs to give the reader a contextualised portrait that stands up for itself. In the case of a well-known figure from ancient history, especially the most famous of all, the biographer is faced with two main obstacles. First comes the difficulty of finding out anything new. Secondly, when a tale has already been told many times, detaching the plausible from the mythologised takes precedence over constructing new narrative. And to compare the task of writing a biography of Julius Caesar with that of a “colossus” from recent times – say Winston Churchill – an author needs to keep the obscurity of the facts under control while encasing the narrative in familiar terms.
It's interesting that Goldsworthy draws only sparingly on Caesar's own Commentaries, preferring third hand accounts. But surely the reports he sent from the campaigns in Gaul, which were published more of less annually in Rome, would have been widely read at the time? According to Cicero, the author tells us, even tradespeople were fond of reading. Furthermore, Caesar was renowned for the clarity of his writing - making it easier for the less educated, and therefore I think we should simply assume he was a popular author in his lifetime. Although he didn't write an actual autobiography, like Sulla (his predecessor as dictator); I think it's necessary to distinguish between the way Caesar saw himself and the way others recalled him.
At this point, I pray to digress and delve into my own motives for reading a biography of such a remote figure. I often read these accounts of real people's lives as a sort of antidote to my fiction reading. It intrigues me to see how well or ill character is conveyed by words alone; and I qualify that point of view by stating I come from the first generation brought up in the television age (I was born in 1956 and remember watching Popeye cartoons at the age of three or four). The virtual window of inscribed words on a page (whether of clay tablet, papyrus roll, paper book or e-reader screen) was established long before the time of Julius Caesar. By his era, real life & myth had already been recorded in histories or mimicked in prose & verse for more than a thousand years (if we go merely as far back as the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh). Caesar himself made unique contributions to the body of writing, not only by publishing the Commentaries his own accounts of his military campaigns, he was also a poet and critic. Biographers, therefore, are able to use his own writing – and that of contemporaries such as Cicero – to base much of their texts on. We also have two thousand years' worth of commentaries on those commentaries to help us decipher them. When we pick up any book purporting to be a life of Julius Caesar, therefore, I think we are entitled to expect a fine distillation not just of the grapes of truth (if such a phrase may be pardonned) but the true essence of the man.
Goldsworthy's method, especially in the first third of his book, is to extrapolate Caesar's youth and early career from a wide-ranging of reading around the subject. He conjectures on the likely upbringing the boy would have received as a member of an old but somewhat undistinguished branch of the aristocratic Julii clan. He then fills in the backstory of Sulla's dictatorship, which began when Caesar was about fifteen years old. The known facts give the first inklings of the young man's character: his dandiness, defiance and courage. Goldsworthy's caution prevents him from drawing too fine a portrait, though; and when he recounts the young adventurer's expedition to Bythinia (incidentally located in the very part of modern Turkey where I live) he is confronted with one important unknown fact. Did Caesar have a homosexual affair with King Nicomedes? Contemporary sleaze-mongers styled him “Queen of Bythinia” - a sobriquet to dog him for the rest of his life. Though there is no other suggestion that Caesar was anything other than heterosexual (and the prolific seducer of other men's wives), he was still issuing denials of the affair in the year of his assassination, four decades later! In addition to the mocking title of “Queen”, Caesar so distinguished himself in battle against King Nicomedes' enemies (and therefore the enemies of Rome), he was awarded the Civic Crown, the second highest honour possible. These are the facts.
It's all very well to assume Caesar, as a youth, received the same education as every other scion of the rich. That level of research could be summarised without quotes from Suetonius (writing on Caesar himself) or Cicero (writing about another young man). What stands out in Caesar's case? Where precisely were his estates? What local legends survive of him? What is known of the gardens he was to bequeath in his will? I believe there must be things of this kind worthy to include, no matter how dubious the sources may be. After his adopted son Octavian became the Emperor Augustus, Romans worshipped Julius Caesar as a god. Temples were erected to him and all kind of relics would have been dug out and revered. Still being in living memory, anyone who knew him would have contributed to this lore. For comparison, take the life of Jesus Christ, who was far less well-known, yet many little snippets of his family story came out after his death. For example, during the flight to Egypt, Joseph is believed by Coptic Christians to have worked as a carpenter on the Fortress of Babylon in Old Cairo. In the decades after Julius Caesar's death, I am sure thousands of stories were told and many places identified with him. But this book is not based on field research, which is a great shame. We need to know more of his background than just the supposed shape and colour of his toga.
Other ways of getting at the real man could have included a comparative study of the sculpture. Roman artists followed the realism of their Greek masters and though not exactly a warts-and-all approach, neither was Roman stone portraiture ever more than lightly idealised or stylised. Caesar's portrayal in contemporary literature is undoubtedly biased towards the writer's politics. Suetonius in “The Twelve Caesars”, written a century and a half later, was drawing on such like, which writers have done ever since. There is a short round-up of Caesar in literature towards the end of Goldsworthy's book, but nothing like the comparative study I would have expected. Gielgud's portrayal of Shakespeare's Caesar, which I saw at the National Theatre in London, 1977, was somewhat elderly and patrician (the actor himself was probably too old by then), but I seem to remember it was greeted as a classic performance. Caesar, was responsible for his own myth-making, and his efforts to promote himself have reverberated down the centuries.
Any narrative that ends in the pre-known sudden death of its protagonist is bound to be overshadowed by a Faustian cloud; especially a text like Goldsworthy's, which blithely reminds us what is going happen to its protagonist every fifty or so pages. It's hard to imagine anyone watching a film like “The Bunker” without the grim knowledge of how it's going to end. Yet it does not follow that as soon as Caesar crossed the little Rubicon river with the XIIIth Legion (an act of civil war), that his committal of treason therefore doomed him. Yet the expression “crossing the Rubicon” equates to “burning one's boats” not to “selling one's soul to the devil”. It is no coincidence that so many of Caesar's words and actions (whether real, invented or associated) have similarly entered international parlance and culture. He may have uttered the phrase, “Veni, Vidi, Vici” (“I have come, I have seen, I have conquered”) on a previous occasion, but when he included it in his Commentary on the Civil War, he was referring to the pushovers of Pontus and not to his greatest victories. A few months later, returning in triumphal to Rome, the expression was written out on placards and carried in procession and was taken to mean ALL of his conquests. “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears” - the words with which Shakespeare has Mark Anthony open Caesar's funerary ovation - have become the catch-phrase of the populist rabble-rousing politician. Yet Caesar, then dead, remained aloof from the implication. Even the phrase, “Et tu, Brute”, which he himself may not have uttered, remains an expression of the betrayal he obviously felt, and therefore not actually untrue. The myth he built around himself continued to grow long after his death, robbing the assassins of their justification.
Throughout the book, the initials BC are used, which I can't bother objecting to as date marker. The alternative BCE, though it is more politically correct, still refers to the Gregorian calendar (itself a revision of a calendar introduced by Julius Caesar), and anchors history to a Romano-Christian world view. What niggles me is the Faustian countdown effect of constantly referring to these dates. Goldsworthy even talks about BC decades as though they existed. Well, yes, of course ten year periods did exist, but not in the way we count them back from the estimated birth year of Jesus Christ. The Romans had their own anno primo (though never fully agreed on) from which Julius Caesar lived in the eighth century. Roman people would refer to a year as “when so-and-so had the consulship”, or “x years after the dictatorship of another so-and-so”, or “when the triumph of whatshisname was held”. By constantly mentioning years in the countdown BC timetable, Goldsworthy alienates us from the mental set of the Romans.
When we get into the middle and latter thirds of the book, the narrative is dominated by Caesar's military campaigns in Gaul and the Civil War, the true military bias of the book is revealed. Generals throughout history (whether of the field or armchair variety) have studied Caesar's campaigns and Napoleon Bonaparte's commentaries on Caesar's set piece battles are mentioned several times. Caesar's luck, especially in recovering from his own mistakes, seems to have been a major feature of the campaigns he waged. Also, his caution, which probably cost him more victories than defeats, preserved him to fight another day. Of life on his campaigns, Goldsworthy gives interesting details. For example, that Caesar would often stay with local Celtic nobles rather than in his own camp. That horses were fed on seaweed when all other fodder was used up. And that barley or even roots were sometimes made into bread for the legionnaires.
What Goldsworthy fails to do, I think because he always prefers to reserve final judgement, is to summarise the main qualities of Caesar's war fighting succinctly enough. And yet, all the evidence is in the book. Firstly, he was a front-line general who shared the risks of combat and thereby gained the devotion of his soldiers. As a youngster, he went East, organised local militias along Roman lines, and achieved modest successes against poorly-led opposition. Later on, in Gaul, again pitching well-trained troops against semi-wild native warriors, time and time again he overcame divided enemies. Finally, forced to fight against Roman legions in the civil war, he lost almost everything - except his head. Against a tired Pompey, the twelve years he had spent leading armies in the field gave him a significant edge and total victory in the end .
It may come as no surprise to the reader that Caesar suffered from epilepsy, and Goldsworthy does mention the bare facts. However, I would expect a biographer worth his salt to have investigated the incidence of epilepsy amongst other figures from military, political and literary history. Then, by comparing Casear's situation with their's, at least we could have had a better idea of what he and his followers were up against.
Nowhere does Goldsworthy make it clear that Caesar's ability to compromise with his fellow Roman aristocrats would, in the end, prove his downfall. His dictatorship was never the tyranny that Sulla's was, he didn't have people rounded up and killed. He wanted genuine reform: land redistribution to the less well off, the prosecution of corrupt officials, the reward of loyalty, even democracy. He was not vengeful, never dismissed the Senate or blocked elections to the various offices of state. Few could have borne him real grudges. It was simple jealousy, with which the Roman republic was rife (and which he practised as much as most), that set men against him. Jealousy was even encouraged by the system. Elections for the highest offices of state being held every year was just incompatible with a growing empire. Having already expanded far beyond the city-state it was founded as, Rome risked the same fate Athens had suffered four centuries before. An empire needs both strong central AND devolved local government. When appointments were made on a yearly basis and new governors took months to arrive at their territories, there was bound to be discontinuity and corruption. As long as men were able to fight amongst themselves for favours, they would do so to the detriment of the common good.
That's not to suggest Caesar was too saintly for his own good. He and the rest of the Roman nobility were a blood-thirsty lot, which Goldsworthy's book bears witness to and apologises for. What distinguished the Romans from their Gaulish, Egyptian and German neighbours was their organisational skill; meaning they were able to work together in a way unique in the ancient world. Co-operating as soldiers on campaign, they divided the labour of foraging, construction work and actual fighting in a manner that confounded their enemies. In times of war and peace they were business people, traders, settlers, opportunists, you could almost say proto-capitalists – slave-drivers without ethical qualms. In the upshot, Caesar's assassination differs not from any St Valentine's Day massacre type of peer justice. All Caesars, whether big-hearted Julius' or snidey little Edward G. Robinson's, live and die by the sword of jealous brothers-in-arms.
by Adrian Goldsworthy
This life of Julius Caesar was originally published (minus subtitle on jacket) as one of Weidenfield's military history tomes back in 2006. With the success of the BBC/HBO TV series “Rome”, it was quickly repackaged and relaunched to cater for a subsequent surge of interest in the founder of Imperial Rome. Arguably, Julius Caesar has always been ancient history's most popular figure. Even contemporary contenders for that distinction – Cleopatra as beauty/queen, Pompey Magnus as fixer/general, Cicero as writer/orator - were more or less satellites of Gaius Caesar of the Julii. What sets him above the other great figures of the day is the breadth of his achievements from the battlefield, to politics to oratory & authorship. Goldsworthy's biography, we are told, is wider in scope than other accounts. Whereas many books concentrate on Caesar the military tactician, others deal with the rise and fall of his dictatorship. What we have here is a life that claims to combine the man's political career with his military campaigns. But is that enough to pad out a full life?
Most biographies succeed or fail neither by strict adherence to fact, nor by spinning the good yarn. Where an author has to dig out hidden truths, then such facts may have something spicy to add. And where the telling of the tale reflects the legendary nature of its protagonist, then the story may benefit from spicier writing. However, built on original research & good writing, a successful biography needs to give the reader a contextualised portrait that stands up for itself. In the case of a well-known figure from ancient history, especially the most famous of all, the biographer is faced with two main obstacles. First comes the difficulty of finding out anything new. Secondly, when a tale has already been told many times, detaching the plausible from the mythologised takes precedence over constructing new narrative. And to compare the task of writing a biography of Julius Caesar with that of a “colossus” from recent times – say Winston Churchill – an author needs to keep the obscurity of the facts under control while encasing the narrative in familiar terms.
It's interesting that Goldsworthy draws only sparingly on Caesar's own Commentaries, preferring third hand accounts. But surely the reports he sent from the campaigns in Gaul, which were published more of less annually in Rome, would have been widely read at the time? According to Cicero, the author tells us, even tradespeople were fond of reading. Furthermore, Caesar was renowned for the clarity of his writing - making it easier for the less educated, and therefore I think we should simply assume he was a popular author in his lifetime. Although he didn't write an actual autobiography, like Sulla (his predecessor as dictator); I think it's necessary to distinguish between the way Caesar saw himself and the way others recalled him.
At this point, I pray to digress and delve into my own motives for reading a biography of such a remote figure. I often read these accounts of real people's lives as a sort of antidote to my fiction reading. It intrigues me to see how well or ill character is conveyed by words alone; and I qualify that point of view by stating I come from the first generation brought up in the television age (I was born in 1956 and remember watching Popeye cartoons at the age of three or four). The virtual window of inscribed words on a page (whether of clay tablet, papyrus roll, paper book or e-reader screen) was established long before the time of Julius Caesar. By his era, real life & myth had already been recorded in histories or mimicked in prose & verse for more than a thousand years (if we go merely as far back as the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh). Caesar himself made unique contributions to the body of writing, not only by publishing the Commentaries his own accounts of his military campaigns, he was also a poet and critic. Biographers, therefore, are able to use his own writing – and that of contemporaries such as Cicero – to base much of their texts on. We also have two thousand years' worth of commentaries on those commentaries to help us decipher them. When we pick up any book purporting to be a life of Julius Caesar, therefore, I think we are entitled to expect a fine distillation not just of the grapes of truth (if such a phrase may be pardonned) but the true essence of the man.
Goldsworthy's method, especially in the first third of his book, is to extrapolate Caesar's youth and early career from a wide-ranging of reading around the subject. He conjectures on the likely upbringing the boy would have received as a member of an old but somewhat undistinguished branch of the aristocratic Julii clan. He then fills in the backstory of Sulla's dictatorship, which began when Caesar was about fifteen years old. The known facts give the first inklings of the young man's character: his dandiness, defiance and courage. Goldsworthy's caution prevents him from drawing too fine a portrait, though; and when he recounts the young adventurer's expedition to Bythinia (incidentally located in the very part of modern Turkey where I live) he is confronted with one important unknown fact. Did Caesar have a homosexual affair with King Nicomedes? Contemporary sleaze-mongers styled him “Queen of Bythinia” - a sobriquet to dog him for the rest of his life. Though there is no other suggestion that Caesar was anything other than heterosexual (and the prolific seducer of other men's wives), he was still issuing denials of the affair in the year of his assassination, four decades later! In addition to the mocking title of “Queen”, Caesar so distinguished himself in battle against King Nicomedes' enemies (and therefore the enemies of Rome), he was awarded the Civic Crown, the second highest honour possible. These are the facts.
It's all very well to assume Caesar, as a youth, received the same education as every other scion of the rich. That level of research could be summarised without quotes from Suetonius (writing on Caesar himself) or Cicero (writing about another young man). What stands out in Caesar's case? Where precisely were his estates? What local legends survive of him? What is known of the gardens he was to bequeath in his will? I believe there must be things of this kind worthy to include, no matter how dubious the sources may be. After his adopted son Octavian became the Emperor Augustus, Romans worshipped Julius Caesar as a god. Temples were erected to him and all kind of relics would have been dug out and revered. Still being in living memory, anyone who knew him would have contributed to this lore. For comparison, take the life of Jesus Christ, who was far less well-known, yet many little snippets of his family story came out after his death. For example, during the flight to Egypt, Joseph is believed by Coptic Christians to have worked as a carpenter on the Fortress of Babylon in Old Cairo. In the decades after Julius Caesar's death, I am sure thousands of stories were told and many places identified with him. But this book is not based on field research, which is a great shame. We need to know more of his background than just the supposed shape and colour of his toga.
Other ways of getting at the real man could have included a comparative study of the sculpture. Roman artists followed the realism of their Greek masters and though not exactly a warts-and-all approach, neither was Roman stone portraiture ever more than lightly idealised or stylised. Caesar's portrayal in contemporary literature is undoubtedly biased towards the writer's politics. Suetonius in “The Twelve Caesars”, written a century and a half later, was drawing on such like, which writers have done ever since. There is a short round-up of Caesar in literature towards the end of Goldsworthy's book, but nothing like the comparative study I would have expected. Gielgud's portrayal of Shakespeare's Caesar, which I saw at the National Theatre in London, 1977, was somewhat elderly and patrician (the actor himself was probably too old by then), but I seem to remember it was greeted as a classic performance. Caesar, was responsible for his own myth-making, and his efforts to promote himself have reverberated down the centuries.
Any narrative that ends in the pre-known sudden death of its protagonist is bound to be overshadowed by a Faustian cloud; especially a text like Goldsworthy's, which blithely reminds us what is going happen to its protagonist every fifty or so pages. It's hard to imagine anyone watching a film like “The Bunker” without the grim knowledge of how it's going to end. Yet it does not follow that as soon as Caesar crossed the little Rubicon river with the XIIIth Legion (an act of civil war), that his committal of treason therefore doomed him. Yet the expression “crossing the Rubicon” equates to “burning one's boats” not to “selling one's soul to the devil”. It is no coincidence that so many of Caesar's words and actions (whether real, invented or associated) have similarly entered international parlance and culture. He may have uttered the phrase, “Veni, Vidi, Vici” (“I have come, I have seen, I have conquered”) on a previous occasion, but when he included it in his Commentary on the Civil War, he was referring to the pushovers of Pontus and not to his greatest victories. A few months later, returning in triumphal to Rome, the expression was written out on placards and carried in procession and was taken to mean ALL of his conquests. “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears” - the words with which Shakespeare has Mark Anthony open Caesar's funerary ovation - have become the catch-phrase of the populist rabble-rousing politician. Yet Caesar, then dead, remained aloof from the implication. Even the phrase, “Et tu, Brute”, which he himself may not have uttered, remains an expression of the betrayal he obviously felt, and therefore not actually untrue. The myth he built around himself continued to grow long after his death, robbing the assassins of their justification.
Throughout the book, the initials BC are used, which I can't bother objecting to as date marker. The alternative BCE, though it is more politically correct, still refers to the Gregorian calendar (itself a revision of a calendar introduced by Julius Caesar), and anchors history to a Romano-Christian world view. What niggles me is the Faustian countdown effect of constantly referring to these dates. Goldsworthy even talks about BC decades as though they existed. Well, yes, of course ten year periods did exist, but not in the way we count them back from the estimated birth year of Jesus Christ. The Romans had their own anno primo (though never fully agreed on) from which Julius Caesar lived in the eighth century. Roman people would refer to a year as “when so-and-so had the consulship”, or “x years after the dictatorship of another so-and-so”, or “when the triumph of whatshisname was held”. By constantly mentioning years in the countdown BC timetable, Goldsworthy alienates us from the mental set of the Romans.
When we get into the middle and latter thirds of the book, the narrative is dominated by Caesar's military campaigns in Gaul and the Civil War, the true military bias of the book is revealed. Generals throughout history (whether of the field or armchair variety) have studied Caesar's campaigns and Napoleon Bonaparte's commentaries on Caesar's set piece battles are mentioned several times. Caesar's luck, especially in recovering from his own mistakes, seems to have been a major feature of the campaigns he waged. Also, his caution, which probably cost him more victories than defeats, preserved him to fight another day. Of life on his campaigns, Goldsworthy gives interesting details. For example, that Caesar would often stay with local Celtic nobles rather than in his own camp. That horses were fed on seaweed when all other fodder was used up. And that barley or even roots were sometimes made into bread for the legionnaires.
What Goldsworthy fails to do, I think because he always prefers to reserve final judgement, is to summarise the main qualities of Caesar's war fighting succinctly enough. And yet, all the evidence is in the book. Firstly, he was a front-line general who shared the risks of combat and thereby gained the devotion of his soldiers. As a youngster, he went East, organised local militias along Roman lines, and achieved modest successes against poorly-led opposition. Later on, in Gaul, again pitching well-trained troops against semi-wild native warriors, time and time again he overcame divided enemies. Finally, forced to fight against Roman legions in the civil war, he lost almost everything - except his head. Against a tired Pompey, the twelve years he had spent leading armies in the field gave him a significant edge and total victory in the end .
It may come as no surprise to the reader that Caesar suffered from epilepsy, and Goldsworthy does mention the bare facts. However, I would expect a biographer worth his salt to have investigated the incidence of epilepsy amongst other figures from military, political and literary history. Then, by comparing Casear's situation with their's, at least we could have had a better idea of what he and his followers were up against.
Nowhere does Goldsworthy make it clear that Caesar's ability to compromise with his fellow Roman aristocrats would, in the end, prove his downfall. His dictatorship was never the tyranny that Sulla's was, he didn't have people rounded up and killed. He wanted genuine reform: land redistribution to the less well off, the prosecution of corrupt officials, the reward of loyalty, even democracy. He was not vengeful, never dismissed the Senate or blocked elections to the various offices of state. Few could have borne him real grudges. It was simple jealousy, with which the Roman republic was rife (and which he practised as much as most), that set men against him. Jealousy was even encouraged by the system. Elections for the highest offices of state being held every year was just incompatible with a growing empire. Having already expanded far beyond the city-state it was founded as, Rome risked the same fate Athens had suffered four centuries before. An empire needs both strong central AND devolved local government. When appointments were made on a yearly basis and new governors took months to arrive at their territories, there was bound to be discontinuity and corruption. As long as men were able to fight amongst themselves for favours, they would do so to the detriment of the common good.
That's not to suggest Caesar was too saintly for his own good. He and the rest of the Roman nobility were a blood-thirsty lot, which Goldsworthy's book bears witness to and apologises for. What distinguished the Romans from their Gaulish, Egyptian and German neighbours was their organisational skill; meaning they were able to work together in a way unique in the ancient world. Co-operating as soldiers on campaign, they divided the labour of foraging, construction work and actual fighting in a manner that confounded their enemies. In times of war and peace they were business people, traders, settlers, opportunists, you could almost say proto-capitalists – slave-drivers without ethical qualms. In the upshot, Caesar's assassination differs not from any St Valentine's Day massacre type of peer justice. All Caesars, whether big-hearted Julius' or snidey little Edward G. Robinson's, live and die by the sword of jealous brothers-in-arms.
February 25, 2019
Gaius Julius Caesar is the most famous Roman to have ever lived. In part this is because his own writings have survived and are known to us, and he was himself a very good writer. However, it was also the sort of man that he was as well.
Caesar was an intellectual, a politician of rare genius, a dutiful soldier and Roman patriot, an inveterate and shameless ladies man who slept with the wives of numerous other men and the famous Cleopatra, and a man who knew how to turn a phrase to manipulate the masses.
But above all else, Caesar was one of the greatest generals to have ever lived.
Adrian Goldsworthy's finest work is this biopic, focused on the political and military aspects of the subject, of Julius Caesar and the world In which he lived. While most of us think of Caesar as the man who turned Rome from a Republic into an Empire, Goldsworthy shows that this is not only not true (it is a persistent myth amongst the lesser read in ancient history), but that the truth of what Caesar really did was far more complex, and nuanced, than what most believe.
Caesar came of age in a turbulent, chaotic period of Roman history. The Republic, as a system of governance and an institution, was dying. Political corruption was endemic, and a plague upon Roman society (there is a reason Monarchists like to pull out the old canard of too many cooks spoiling the soup). Violence had already been introduced into the political arena of Rome long before Caesar's birth.
And Rome had already endured one civil war in Caesar's lifetime.
The aftermath of that war, Sulla's dreaded proscriptions (death lists), forced Caesar to flee the Italian peninsula for a time as his family had sided with the losing side, that of Gaius Marius. Caesar's later civil war, then, was not something unique as that particular Rubicon had already been crossed generations earlier.
Goldsworthy does an excellent job laying the groundwork to establish the state of the world of the late Republic, and of Caesar's early political career. Easily the best vignette from Caesar's early life, and one that should stand as a harbinger of Caesar as a whole, is the story of his abduction by the Cilician pirates. The pirates were the scourge of the Mediterranean for some time, and even the Hellenistic and Roman navies could not operate with impunity against them.
Caesar's capture as a hostage in demand of a high ransom (it was known he was from a minor Patrician family) was a fairly common one at the time. Caesar being Caesar, however, used his charm and his wit to befriend his captors, and in a moment of shared drunken reverie promised to escape, return with a group of Marines, and crucify them all. Laughs all around.
Except he did. Caesar always was a man of his word.
The chaos of the late Republic ensured that there were more than enough crises’ to pass around to ambitious and skillful men. Caesar turned out to be but one of three highly skilled men who rose to the very top of Roman political and military achievement.
Gnaeus Pompey, the man who finished the last elements of the first civil war in Iberia and who exterminated the pirates, stomped the forces of Pontus, and conquered Judea and Jerusalem for the Republic. Licinius Crassus, the wealthiest man in the Republic, and the doom of Spartacus and his slave revolt. Together with Caesar they formed what later historians call the Triumvirate.
For a time this political alliance ensured stability and order, but ambitious men, of which Caesar was chief, have a tendency to always want more power than what they have and this relationship began to frey. Crassus fell first, leading a failed invasion of Parthia (Persia) wherein he lost his life at the Battle of Carrhae in modern day Iraq. Pompey had married Caesar's daughter, however, (a spring and summer relationship for the ages as Pompey was over twice her age) and their love for each other was genuine (oddly enough, historically older male and younger female relationships are the norm for human societies) which ensured the political alliance stayed true.
This assisted Caesar in his quest for the Consulship and the ability to tackle all of Gaul. It was Gaul that made Caesar.
Goldsworthy showcases Caesar's multifaceted brilliance while on campaign in Gaul. More than just a military conquest, Gaul was a campaign fought using politics and persuasion just as much as the might of the Legions. Gaul was not a unified nation, but a loose federation of tribes that often were at each other's throats. Massed migrations of Helvetians, and rampaging Germanics gave Caesar the casus belli to manipulate the political alliances with certain tribes to establish Roman hegemony over all of Gaul. Gaul's were the ancient threat of the Roman world, and Caesar understood that conquering them would establish him forever as a hero to all Romans.
The campaign went spectacularly. Even giving Caesar the opportunity to cow the Germans by twice bridging the formidable Rhine and rampaging German lands, and in raiding Britannia, a land no Roman had ever gone before.
However, by this point, the Gaul's figured out that the Romans were not leaving, and so revolted under the leadership of the nobleman Vercingetorix.
This revolt would end in the greatest battle of Caesar's life: Alesia. Alesia was won both by engineering skill as well as the sword and pilum, and against a combined Gallic host that may have numbered as much as a quarter million against at most 45-50,000 Romans. Alesia made Caesar a household name, and ensured a bevy of political rivalries that would terminally rend the Republic.
Caesar's spectacular conquest of Gaul, combined with the early death of his daughter, Pompey's wife (who was genuinely heartbroken over the loss of his dearly beloved Julia) ensured the demise of the political alliance that had held Roman order together for over a decade. Senatorial rivals promised to punish Caesar for his success (using legalese to craft it in such a way as to paint Caesar as a lawbreaker), and personally threatened him.
They failed to count upon the loyalty of the Army to Caesar and not the State.
The ensuing second Roman Civil War saw the Senate waging war against a single man and his loyal Legions. The viciousness of the war, however, did not come from Caesar's hand, but ironically from the Senate. Caesar vowed to be a better man than either Marius or Sulla, and freely pardoned captured foes and displayed mercy to captured rival cities.
His enemies, however, never reciprocated, and the escalation was only as a result of their actions.
Pompey's star finally fell at the great Battle of Pharsalus in Macedonia where Caesar's badly outnumbered men routed the Senatorial army. Pompey himself fled to Ptolemaic Egypt, where he was murdered in the hopes of garnering Caesar's favor.
After finally winning the Civil War, Caesar installed himself as Dictator for life (not Emperor, that was a different Caesar) and made an honest effort to reform Roman rule and ease the burden of the poorer class. His ostentation, however, doomed him as did his earlier mercy.
Many of the men who stabbed him in the back had been pardoned by Caesar during the war recently fought.
Murdered in the name of Roman freedom, these senators, in a great irony, ensured a third Civil War. One which finally and forever doomed the Republic, and saw one man, the adopted nephew of Caesar himself, Octavian, name himself as Caesar Augustus: First Emperor of Rome.
As I mentioned prior, this is Adrian Goldsworthy's greatest work. Written clearly while not condescendingly, with skillful analysis, and never a dull moment considering the subject matter.
This was a happy re-read, and one I can wholeheartedly recommend.
Caesar was an intellectual, a politician of rare genius, a dutiful soldier and Roman patriot, an inveterate and shameless ladies man who slept with the wives of numerous other men and the famous Cleopatra, and a man who knew how to turn a phrase to manipulate the masses.
But above all else, Caesar was one of the greatest generals to have ever lived.
Adrian Goldsworthy's finest work is this biopic, focused on the political and military aspects of the subject, of Julius Caesar and the world In which he lived. While most of us think of Caesar as the man who turned Rome from a Republic into an Empire, Goldsworthy shows that this is not only not true (it is a persistent myth amongst the lesser read in ancient history), but that the truth of what Caesar really did was far more complex, and nuanced, than what most believe.
Caesar came of age in a turbulent, chaotic period of Roman history. The Republic, as a system of governance and an institution, was dying. Political corruption was endemic, and a plague upon Roman society (there is a reason Monarchists like to pull out the old canard of too many cooks spoiling the soup). Violence had already been introduced into the political arena of Rome long before Caesar's birth.
And Rome had already endured one civil war in Caesar's lifetime.
The aftermath of that war, Sulla's dreaded proscriptions (death lists), forced Caesar to flee the Italian peninsula for a time as his family had sided with the losing side, that of Gaius Marius. Caesar's later civil war, then, was not something unique as that particular Rubicon had already been crossed generations earlier.
Goldsworthy does an excellent job laying the groundwork to establish the state of the world of the late Republic, and of Caesar's early political career. Easily the best vignette from Caesar's early life, and one that should stand as a harbinger of Caesar as a whole, is the story of his abduction by the Cilician pirates. The pirates were the scourge of the Mediterranean for some time, and even the Hellenistic and Roman navies could not operate with impunity against them.
Caesar's capture as a hostage in demand of a high ransom (it was known he was from a minor Patrician family) was a fairly common one at the time. Caesar being Caesar, however, used his charm and his wit to befriend his captors, and in a moment of shared drunken reverie promised to escape, return with a group of Marines, and crucify them all. Laughs all around.
Except he did. Caesar always was a man of his word.
The chaos of the late Republic ensured that there were more than enough crises’ to pass around to ambitious and skillful men. Caesar turned out to be but one of three highly skilled men who rose to the very top of Roman political and military achievement.
Gnaeus Pompey, the man who finished the last elements of the first civil war in Iberia and who exterminated the pirates, stomped the forces of Pontus, and conquered Judea and Jerusalem for the Republic. Licinius Crassus, the wealthiest man in the Republic, and the doom of Spartacus and his slave revolt. Together with Caesar they formed what later historians call the Triumvirate.
For a time this political alliance ensured stability and order, but ambitious men, of which Caesar was chief, have a tendency to always want more power than what they have and this relationship began to frey. Crassus fell first, leading a failed invasion of Parthia (Persia) wherein he lost his life at the Battle of Carrhae in modern day Iraq. Pompey had married Caesar's daughter, however, (a spring and summer relationship for the ages as Pompey was over twice her age) and their love for each other was genuine (oddly enough, historically older male and younger female relationships are the norm for human societies) which ensured the political alliance stayed true.
This assisted Caesar in his quest for the Consulship and the ability to tackle all of Gaul. It was Gaul that made Caesar.
Goldsworthy showcases Caesar's multifaceted brilliance while on campaign in Gaul. More than just a military conquest, Gaul was a campaign fought using politics and persuasion just as much as the might of the Legions. Gaul was not a unified nation, but a loose federation of tribes that often were at each other's throats. Massed migrations of Helvetians, and rampaging Germanics gave Caesar the casus belli to manipulate the political alliances with certain tribes to establish Roman hegemony over all of Gaul. Gaul's were the ancient threat of the Roman world, and Caesar understood that conquering them would establish him forever as a hero to all Romans.
The campaign went spectacularly. Even giving Caesar the opportunity to cow the Germans by twice bridging the formidable Rhine and rampaging German lands, and in raiding Britannia, a land no Roman had ever gone before.
However, by this point, the Gaul's figured out that the Romans were not leaving, and so revolted under the leadership of the nobleman Vercingetorix.
This revolt would end in the greatest battle of Caesar's life: Alesia. Alesia was won both by engineering skill as well as the sword and pilum, and against a combined Gallic host that may have numbered as much as a quarter million against at most 45-50,000 Romans. Alesia made Caesar a household name, and ensured a bevy of political rivalries that would terminally rend the Republic.
Caesar's spectacular conquest of Gaul, combined with the early death of his daughter, Pompey's wife (who was genuinely heartbroken over the loss of his dearly beloved Julia) ensured the demise of the political alliance that had held Roman order together for over a decade. Senatorial rivals promised to punish Caesar for his success (using legalese to craft it in such a way as to paint Caesar as a lawbreaker), and personally threatened him.
They failed to count upon the loyalty of the Army to Caesar and not the State.
The ensuing second Roman Civil War saw the Senate waging war against a single man and his loyal Legions. The viciousness of the war, however, did not come from Caesar's hand, but ironically from the Senate. Caesar vowed to be a better man than either Marius or Sulla, and freely pardoned captured foes and displayed mercy to captured rival cities.
His enemies, however, never reciprocated, and the escalation was only as a result of their actions.
Pompey's star finally fell at the great Battle of Pharsalus in Macedonia where Caesar's badly outnumbered men routed the Senatorial army. Pompey himself fled to Ptolemaic Egypt, where he was murdered in the hopes of garnering Caesar's favor.
After finally winning the Civil War, Caesar installed himself as Dictator for life (not Emperor, that was a different Caesar) and made an honest effort to reform Roman rule and ease the burden of the poorer class. His ostentation, however, doomed him as did his earlier mercy.
Many of the men who stabbed him in the back had been pardoned by Caesar during the war recently fought.
Murdered in the name of Roman freedom, these senators, in a great irony, ensured a third Civil War. One which finally and forever doomed the Republic, and saw one man, the adopted nephew of Caesar himself, Octavian, name himself as Caesar Augustus: First Emperor of Rome.
As I mentioned prior, this is Adrian Goldsworthy's greatest work. Written clearly while not condescendingly, with skillful analysis, and never a dull moment considering the subject matter.
This was a happy re-read, and one I can wholeheartedly recommend.
April 29, 2023
Though over two thousand years has passed since his death in 44 BCE, Julius Caesar’s name remains one familiar to millions of people. Part of this is a reflection of his achievements, as he rose through the turbulent politics of the Roman Republic to win fame and fortune as a military commander and then unprecedented power as dictator. While this led to his assassination at the hands of a diverse group of opponents, his actions paved the way for the establishment of a new imperial governing structure that would persist in various forms for nearly 1,500 years. Yet for all his renown many of the details of his life remain obscure, while others are little more than legend created to embellish the story. Moreover, much of what we do know comes from Caesar’s own pen, and was written with the goal of glorifying his achievements and excusing his failures
Because of this, among the challenges facing anyone writing a biography of Caesar is to sort out fact from the many fictions that have grown up around him. To that end, Adrian Goldsworthy draws upon the broader scholarship on the era to assess the veracity of the contemporary sources and fill in the gaps in our understanding of his life. In the process, he provides an account of Caesar’s career that sets it within the context of the history of his times. It’s a well-rounded account that helps readers to better understand his role in the drama of the late Republic, as well as his part in its downfall.
To that end Goldsworthy starts his book by describing the Republic into which Caesar was born. As the only major power remaining in the Mediterranean world, Rome enjoyed an uncontested dominance in the region. The efforts required to establish this supremacy and the fruits gained from it, though, had strained the constitutional norms of the Republic to their breaking point. Attempts to alleviate the social ills resulting from the growing disparities between rich and poor were resisted by a patrician elite unwilling to share a portion of their power and wealth. In response, a new trend had emerged of proconsuls (military commanders who had previously served in Rome’s highest executive office) leveraging their prestige and control over their legions into periods of dictatorship. These men provided temporary solutions, but at the cost of establishing dangerous precedents that undermined the Republic’s traditions.
Caesar had to navigate this political turmoil from an early age. After service abroad as a member of a proconsul’s staff, Caesar returned to Rome to begin his political career. Here Goldsworthy features his subject’s political abilities, most notably a gift for conciliation that allowed him to form an alliance with Marcus Licinius Crassus and Pompey, the two wealthiest and most powerful men in Roman politics. By getting these two adversaries to set aside their differences, Caesar became the third member of the “First Triumvirate” that dominated Roman politics for seven years, with Caesar himself winning election as consul –the Republic’s highest executive office and the key to high military command – in 60 BCE.
Upon ending his term as consul in 59 BCE, Caesar was named governor of Gaul. It was during these years that Caesar first made his name as a general and began his extraordinary career as a military commander. As Goldsworthy notes, Caesar would spend virtually the remainder of his life engaged in a series of campaigns that would take him across the length and breadth of the Republic’s empire. Not only did his victories make him extremely wealthy, but they also won him enormous fame, which he enhanced through his famous Commentaries. These Goldsworthy regards as relatively accurate accounts of Caesar’s activities, noting how the constant flow of communication between his commanders and Rome meant that spurious claims would be quickly debunked. Yet Caesar still was able to present events within his dispatches in ways that served to burnish his reputation back home.
Facing the possibility of a renewed civil war and fearing Caesar’s fame, the Senate tried to rein him in by recalling him to Rome. When his efforts to negotiate a mutual disarmament ended in failure, Caesar marched on Rome in 49 BCE, initiating a three-year-long war against the forces allied with his former partner (and son-in-law) Pompey. Upon his triumphal return to Rome Caesar adopted a wide range of reforms designed both to centralize power in his hands and to address longstanding social problems. Though his position at this point seemed uncontestable, fears for the diminution of their status and the concentration of so much power in one man’s hands led a group of senators to plot Caesar’s assassination, which they undertook just before Caesar embarked on a new series of conquests in the east.
As a specialist in Roman military history, Goldsworthy is ideally suited to the task of detailing the campaigns that made Caesar’s name. These he describes with a deft touch that provides clear explanations of the factors determining the course of the battles and the reasons for the decisions that were made. His coverage of Caesar’s political career is no less accomplished, as he brings to life in his narrative the many famous personalities of that era. These come across not as marble figures but as real human beings with both gifts and flaws that help explain their achievements. And this proves especially true for Caesar himself, whom Goldsworthy regards as a man of prodigious talent both as a general and a politician, and whose forgiving nature in the end proved his Achilles heel. It is these achievements which make Goldsworthy’s book such a superb biography of his subject, one that is highly recommended both as an account of his life and as a window into the politics of his time.
Because of this, among the challenges facing anyone writing a biography of Caesar is to sort out fact from the many fictions that have grown up around him. To that end, Adrian Goldsworthy draws upon the broader scholarship on the era to assess the veracity of the contemporary sources and fill in the gaps in our understanding of his life. In the process, he provides an account of Caesar’s career that sets it within the context of the history of his times. It’s a well-rounded account that helps readers to better understand his role in the drama of the late Republic, as well as his part in its downfall.
To that end Goldsworthy starts his book by describing the Republic into which Caesar was born. As the only major power remaining in the Mediterranean world, Rome enjoyed an uncontested dominance in the region. The efforts required to establish this supremacy and the fruits gained from it, though, had strained the constitutional norms of the Republic to their breaking point. Attempts to alleviate the social ills resulting from the growing disparities between rich and poor were resisted by a patrician elite unwilling to share a portion of their power and wealth. In response, a new trend had emerged of proconsuls (military commanders who had previously served in Rome’s highest executive office) leveraging their prestige and control over their legions into periods of dictatorship. These men provided temporary solutions, but at the cost of establishing dangerous precedents that undermined the Republic’s traditions.
Caesar had to navigate this political turmoil from an early age. After service abroad as a member of a proconsul’s staff, Caesar returned to Rome to begin his political career. Here Goldsworthy features his subject’s political abilities, most notably a gift for conciliation that allowed him to form an alliance with Marcus Licinius Crassus and Pompey, the two wealthiest and most powerful men in Roman politics. By getting these two adversaries to set aside their differences, Caesar became the third member of the “First Triumvirate” that dominated Roman politics for seven years, with Caesar himself winning election as consul –the Republic’s highest executive office and the key to high military command – in 60 BCE.
Upon ending his term as consul in 59 BCE, Caesar was named governor of Gaul. It was during these years that Caesar first made his name as a general and began his extraordinary career as a military commander. As Goldsworthy notes, Caesar would spend virtually the remainder of his life engaged in a series of campaigns that would take him across the length and breadth of the Republic’s empire. Not only did his victories make him extremely wealthy, but they also won him enormous fame, which he enhanced through his famous Commentaries. These Goldsworthy regards as relatively accurate accounts of Caesar’s activities, noting how the constant flow of communication between his commanders and Rome meant that spurious claims would be quickly debunked. Yet Caesar still was able to present events within his dispatches in ways that served to burnish his reputation back home.
Facing the possibility of a renewed civil war and fearing Caesar’s fame, the Senate tried to rein him in by recalling him to Rome. When his efforts to negotiate a mutual disarmament ended in failure, Caesar marched on Rome in 49 BCE, initiating a three-year-long war against the forces allied with his former partner (and son-in-law) Pompey. Upon his triumphal return to Rome Caesar adopted a wide range of reforms designed both to centralize power in his hands and to address longstanding social problems. Though his position at this point seemed uncontestable, fears for the diminution of their status and the concentration of so much power in one man’s hands led a group of senators to plot Caesar’s assassination, which they undertook just before Caesar embarked on a new series of conquests in the east.
As a specialist in Roman military history, Goldsworthy is ideally suited to the task of detailing the campaigns that made Caesar’s name. These he describes with a deft touch that provides clear explanations of the factors determining the course of the battles and the reasons for the decisions that were made. His coverage of Caesar’s political career is no less accomplished, as he brings to life in his narrative the many famous personalities of that era. These come across not as marble figures but as real human beings with both gifts and flaws that help explain their achievements. And this proves especially true for Caesar himself, whom Goldsworthy regards as a man of prodigious talent both as a general and a politician, and whose forgiving nature in the end proved his Achilles heel. It is these achievements which make Goldsworthy’s book such a superb biography of his subject, one that is highly recommended both as an account of his life and as a window into the politics of his time.
October 17, 2015
This book is a thorough and interesting history of the life of Caesar. I was surprised by how engaging it was, even though it stuck almost entirely to (often sparse) historical fact and only the most scholarly of speculation.
Since the events in this book happened 2000 years ago, a lot of details are missing, especially regarding Caesar's thoughts and personality. And yet a surprising number of very intimate details have been preserved, mainly through Caesar's Commentaries (on the Gallic and Civil Wars) and Cicero's letters. Given the supposedly vast amounts of correspondence, literature, and records written in this period, it is a little maddening that Cicero's letters are our main window into what was going on. But, I guess we should be grateful for what we have.
The book does a good job of letting you form your own judgment about Caesar. He is definitely an ambiguous character. He was always brave (early in life he refused Sulla's order to divorce his wife and went on the run; in Asia he raised a small army and repelled invaders on his own initiative as a private citizen; in Gaul and the civil wars he would sometimes go up to the front rows of the battle to rally his soldiers, etc etc). He was amazingly talented and hard-working (he won dozens of battles, passed tons of important legislation, and was one of Rome's best showmen). He was generous to his friends and, in the Civil War, ready to pardon all of his (Roman) enemies. He was charming in person and an accomplished womanizer (I thought it was interesting that he had affairs with Pompey's wife, Crassus's wife, Brutus's mother (Brutus may have been his son), and possibly Brutus's sister, who was also Cassius's wife). But he was also ruthless (in one instance in Gaul he had all of the leaders of a certain tribe executed) and power-hungry. Everything he did was calculated to advance his own career. In the end he does not come across as a very likable person.
He also came out of the book seeming less special, at least to me. He was not a singular instance of genius but rather part of a pattern in recent Roman history. Before Caesar was Sulla, before Sulla was Marius, and before Marius were other wannabe rabble rousers/dictators like the Gracchi brothers. Concurrent with Caesar was Pompey (who didn't seem inclined to overturn the Republic but easily could have). After Caesar were Mark Antony and Octavian. So yeah, Caesar was very talented and hard-working. But the Republic had become fundamentally unstable, and someone like Caesar coming along and making himself a permanent dictator seems inevitable (in historical retrospect).
Anyway, I would recommend this book for anyone who is interested in Roman history. It sticks to the historical record but is also very engaging and well-written.
PS - There is an aside about the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt (of which Cleopatra was a part). It seems like it was amazingly corrupt. I think that it may have provided some inspiration for Game of Thrones. There were plotting eunuchs, hugely obese rulers, a tradition of incest, suicides, siblings turn on siblings, etc. Doesn't really have to do with the main storyline but I thought it was interesting.
Since the events in this book happened 2000 years ago, a lot of details are missing, especially regarding Caesar's thoughts and personality. And yet a surprising number of very intimate details have been preserved, mainly through Caesar's Commentaries (on the Gallic and Civil Wars) and Cicero's letters. Given the supposedly vast amounts of correspondence, literature, and records written in this period, it is a little maddening that Cicero's letters are our main window into what was going on. But, I guess we should be grateful for what we have.
The book does a good job of letting you form your own judgment about Caesar. He is definitely an ambiguous character. He was always brave (early in life he refused Sulla's order to divorce his wife and went on the run; in Asia he raised a small army and repelled invaders on his own initiative as a private citizen; in Gaul and the civil wars he would sometimes go up to the front rows of the battle to rally his soldiers, etc etc). He was amazingly talented and hard-working (he won dozens of battles, passed tons of important legislation, and was one of Rome's best showmen). He was generous to his friends and, in the Civil War, ready to pardon all of his (Roman) enemies. He was charming in person and an accomplished womanizer (I thought it was interesting that he had affairs with Pompey's wife, Crassus's wife, Brutus's mother (Brutus may have been his son), and possibly Brutus's sister, who was also Cassius's wife). But he was also ruthless (in one instance in Gaul he had all of the leaders of a certain tribe executed) and power-hungry. Everything he did was calculated to advance his own career. In the end he does not come across as a very likable person.
He also came out of the book seeming less special, at least to me. He was not a singular instance of genius but rather part of a pattern in recent Roman history. Before Caesar was Sulla, before Sulla was Marius, and before Marius were other wannabe rabble rousers/dictators like the Gracchi brothers. Concurrent with Caesar was Pompey (who didn't seem inclined to overturn the Republic but easily could have). After Caesar were Mark Antony and Octavian. So yeah, Caesar was very talented and hard-working. But the Republic had become fundamentally unstable, and someone like Caesar coming along and making himself a permanent dictator seems inevitable (in historical retrospect).
Anyway, I would recommend this book for anyone who is interested in Roman history. It sticks to the historical record but is also very engaging and well-written.
PS - There is an aside about the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt (of which Cleopatra was a part). It seems like it was amazingly corrupt. I think that it may have provided some inspiration for Game of Thrones. There were plotting eunuchs, hugely obese rulers, a tradition of incest, suicides, siblings turn on siblings, etc. Doesn't really have to do with the main storyline but I thought it was interesting.
February 5, 2019
Tulin, näin ja luin.
Englantilaisen historioitsijan Adrian Goldsworthyn "Caesar" (Gummerus, 2014) on tiiliskiven paksuinen elämäkerta kenties maineikkaimmasta koskaan eläneestä roomalaisesta, jonka nimen tunnistavat nekin, jotka eivät historiaa noin muuten harrasta.
Gaius Julius Caesar (n. 100 eKr - 44 eKr) jätti jälkensä maailmanhistoriaan eräänä kaikkien aikojen menestyksekkäimmistä sotapäälliköistä, joka muun muassa kunnostautui valtaamalla Gallian (pientä kylällistä ei tässä teoksessa mainita), tekemällä melko riskialttiita retkiä Brittein saarille ja taistelemalla voitokkaasti niin ikään maineikasta ja mahtavaa Pompeiusta vastaan verisessä sisällissodassa. Viimeksimainittu merkitsi myös Rooman tasavallan loppua: vaikka Caesarista ei tullut keisaria, oli tasavalta nyt käytännössä yhden miehen - diktaattorin - hallinnassa.
Caesar dokumentoi itse sotaretkensä Gallian sota -teoksessa, jota tänä päivänä pidetään yhtenä klassisimmista latinan kielellä kirjoitetuista teoksista. Hän oli myös hyvä puhuja (näin totesi alan mestarismies Cicero), jolla oli hieman korkea ääni (hei, samaistun!). Lähteiden mukaan hän piti myös näyttävästä ja suorastaan trendikkäästä pukeutumisesta, mikä on sekin aika hauska anekdootti.
Goldworthyn mukaan Caesar oli pahamaineinen naistenmies, jolla oli useita rakastajattaria (Kleopatra on heistä tunnetuin), mutta juorujen ja kokkapuheiden mukaan hänellä olisi nuorena miehenä ollut suhde myös Bithynian kuningas Nikomedeeseen. On mahdotonta sanoa, pitääkö huhu paikkaansa, mutta se kuitenkin kismitti Caesaria pahemman kerran ja sai hänet menettämään malttinsa.
Caesarin väkivaltainen kuolema on myös hyvin tunnettu, mutta mikään lähde ei suoranaisesti todista, että hänen viimeiset sanansa olisivat olleet "Et tu, Brute".
Caesarin elämänvaiheiden lisäksi opin kaikenlaista enemmän tai vähemmän mielenkiintoista Roomasta ja roomalaisista. Kiinnostavasta aiheestaan huolimatta kirja on vähän raskassoutuista luettavaa. Senaattoreita, konsuleita ja muita mahtimiehiä vyöryy sivuilla vastaan sellaista tahtia, että nimet tuntuivat väkisinkin menevän sekaisin, ja hetkittäin kartalla pysyminen vaatii antiikin historiaa vähän heikommin tuntevalta lukijalta ponnisteluja.
Vaikka antiikin ajan lähteitä on tuolta aikakaudelta säilynyt verrattain paljon, niin jotakin jää kaikesta huolimatta katveeseen ja historioiden arvelujen varaan. Luultavasti emme saa kaikkea Caesarin elämänvaiheista koskaan selville, mutta olipahan tuota tässäkin, ainakin tämmöiselle maallikkolukijalle!
Englantilaisen historioitsijan Adrian Goldsworthyn "Caesar" (Gummerus, 2014) on tiiliskiven paksuinen elämäkerta kenties maineikkaimmasta koskaan eläneestä roomalaisesta, jonka nimen tunnistavat nekin, jotka eivät historiaa noin muuten harrasta.
Gaius Julius Caesar (n. 100 eKr - 44 eKr) jätti jälkensä maailmanhistoriaan eräänä kaikkien aikojen menestyksekkäimmistä sotapäälliköistä, joka muun muassa kunnostautui valtaamalla Gallian (pientä kylällistä ei tässä teoksessa mainita), tekemällä melko riskialttiita retkiä Brittein saarille ja taistelemalla voitokkaasti niin ikään maineikasta ja mahtavaa Pompeiusta vastaan verisessä sisällissodassa. Viimeksimainittu merkitsi myös Rooman tasavallan loppua: vaikka Caesarista ei tullut keisaria, oli tasavalta nyt käytännössä yhden miehen - diktaattorin - hallinnassa.
Caesar dokumentoi itse sotaretkensä Gallian sota -teoksessa, jota tänä päivänä pidetään yhtenä klassisimmista latinan kielellä kirjoitetuista teoksista. Hän oli myös hyvä puhuja (näin totesi alan mestarismies Cicero), jolla oli hieman korkea ääni (hei, samaistun!). Lähteiden mukaan hän piti myös näyttävästä ja suorastaan trendikkäästä pukeutumisesta, mikä on sekin aika hauska anekdootti.
Goldworthyn mukaan Caesar oli pahamaineinen naistenmies, jolla oli useita rakastajattaria (Kleopatra on heistä tunnetuin), mutta juorujen ja kokkapuheiden mukaan hänellä olisi nuorena miehenä ollut suhde myös Bithynian kuningas Nikomedeeseen. On mahdotonta sanoa, pitääkö huhu paikkaansa, mutta se kuitenkin kismitti Caesaria pahemman kerran ja sai hänet menettämään malttinsa.
Caesarin väkivaltainen kuolema on myös hyvin tunnettu, mutta mikään lähde ei suoranaisesti todista, että hänen viimeiset sanansa olisivat olleet "Et tu, Brute".
Caesarin elämänvaiheiden lisäksi opin kaikenlaista enemmän tai vähemmän mielenkiintoista Roomasta ja roomalaisista. Kiinnostavasta aiheestaan huolimatta kirja on vähän raskassoutuista luettavaa. Senaattoreita, konsuleita ja muita mahtimiehiä vyöryy sivuilla vastaan sellaista tahtia, että nimet tuntuivat väkisinkin menevän sekaisin, ja hetkittäin kartalla pysyminen vaatii antiikin historiaa vähän heikommin tuntevalta lukijalta ponnisteluja.
Vaikka antiikin ajan lähteitä on tuolta aikakaudelta säilynyt verrattain paljon, niin jotakin jää kaikesta huolimatta katveeseen ja historioiden arvelujen varaan. Luultavasti emme saa kaikkea Caesarin elämänvaiheista koskaan selville, mutta olipahan tuota tässäkin, ainakin tämmöiselle maallikkolukijalle!
August 25, 2024
The author who also wrote The Fall Of Rome gets bogged downed in minute detail of Roman life when he should have been more details on Caesar. Caesar's accomplishments were legendary, despite having malaria & being an epileptic.
February 7, 2017
An exceptional biography. Gripping yet scholarly.
November 3, 2012
In the over two thousand years since Julius Caesar was assassinated, many authors have written books about the great general and statesman trying to understand him. Was he a hero or tyrant? A visionary or a just a practical politician? Caesar is a hard man to nail down despite being one the most written about men in ll history. However, I feel I can say with absolute confidence that Adrian Goldsworthy has truly captured the essence of Caesar and has succeeded in writing in--what I feel--is the book on Julius Caesar for the twenty-first century. If you want to know about just who Julius Caesar was then this is the only book on him that you will ever really need. You do not have to be a history buff to both understand and enjoy this book*, Goldsworthy writes a smooth narrative that is devoid of any technical history jargon that usually infests most historical works.
Julius Caesar did a great deal in his fifty-six years on this Earth. Goldsworthy covers his childhood, his time aboard, and his political rise. Throughout the book, Goldsworthy avoids any trace of presentism and also continuously reminds the reader to avoid using hindsight to come to conclusions about events. He also is carefully not to judge one side in a conflict more harshly than the other and does his best to maintain a historian's impartial distance.
"Roman rule brought to Gaul and other provinces many advantages. At a most basic level it is not unreasonable to say that more people were better off living under the Roman Empire than they were before it came or after it failed. The faults of Roman society--and there were many--were often shared by other cultures including the Gauls. Slavery is an obvious example. The violent entertainments of the arena, which came alongside literature, art and drama as part of Rome's influence, were less usual. Caesar was not responsible for Roman imperialism or for Roman culture, although he was certainly an enthusiastic agent of the Republic's expansion. His conquest of Gaul was not a fulfillment of a long-term aim or ambition, in any sense other than that he had long craved the chance to win glory. It was chance and opportunity that led to him focusing his attention on Gaul."(p.354-5)
"The benefits of Roman rule are arguable but the grim nature of Roman conquest is not. Caesar was entirely pragmatic--effectively amoral--in his use of clemency or massacre and atrocity. During the course of the conquest of Gaul his soldiers did terrible things, sometimes by order, as when they massacred the Usipetes and Tencteri, and occasionally spontaneously, as when they slaughtered women and children at Avaricum. Other Roman armies under other commanders had done similar things in past and would continue to do so in the future. Indeed atrocities as bad, or even worse, were committed by virtually all armies in the ancient world. This is not to justify what Caesar did, merely to place it into context. Warfare in antiquity was generally an extremely cruel business."(p.355)
After Caesar's conquest of Gaul he comes home to find his enemies have backed him into a corner. He can either back down in humiliating defeat or do what other disgruntled Roman generals had done since he himself was a boy: invade Rome. The Roman Civil War has become a romanticized period of history. Much like World War II, the Roman Civil War is given a story-like narrative filled with the colorful figures of the age. The power struggle between two of Rome's greatest leaders and their allies locked in a bitter conflict where there can only be one winner.
"The greatest battle of the war, fought by armies commanded by the ablest generals of the age, was about to occur and inevitably sources recounted the great omens that foreshadowed this massive shift in fortune." (p.425)
For this book does not just feature Caesar. During his life Caesar encountered incredible people. He was the nephew of the great Maris, the son-in-law of Cinna, and he stood up to Sulla when no one else would. Among his colleges during his career were allies such as Crassus, enemies like Cato, friends such as Cicero, and the most intriguing of all Pompey the Great. Caesar and Pompey were two great friends who would become the greatest of rivals. However his most famous encounter is with the great Queen of Egypt.
"When Caesar arrived in Egypt Cleopatra was nearly twenty-one years old and had been queen for almost four years. She was highly intelligent and extremely well educated in the Greek tradition. Later, she would be credited with writing books on a very broad range of subjects. Cleopatra was a noted linguist who it was claimed rarely needed an interpreter when conversing with the leaders of neighboring countries." (p.438)
One of the insights Goldsworthy makes that I find the most fascinating, is he compares Caesar's two great errors: miscalculating the mood of the Gallic aristocracy and miscalculating the mood of the Roman aristocracy to be, in fact, the same error. In both cases he felt that since his rule was good and benevolent that those who had opposed him would come to his side. In Gaul, he managed to prevail and conquer but in Rome he lost his life.
"Caesar tried to change this. In 49 BC he feared falling into the hands of his rivals, just as they were terrified of his returning at the head of an army. In each case the fears may have been ungrounded, but that did not make them any less real. Once the war began Casear paraded his clemency, sparing defeated enemies and in time allowing them to resume their careers. This was calculated policy, intended to win over uncertain and deter the enemy from fighting to the death, but that does not reduce the contrast with his opponents or earlier victors. After he had won, the pardoned Pompeians were allowed back into public life and some treated very well indeed. Once again he clearly felt that this was more likely to persuade them and others to accept his dictatorship. Regardless of his motives, there was a generosity about Caesar's behavior that was matched by no other Roman who came to power in similar circumstances. In the same way, while his lifelong backing for popular causes was intended to win support, at the same time he did implement a number of measures that were in the interest of a wide part of the population." (p.515)
Goldsworthy is right to title this book the life of a Colossus because that is what Caesar was. His life and legacy left a huge impact on the world that very few historical figures can compare. His legacy still looms large even today for both myself and my county celebrates our birthdays (July 3 and 4) in the month that bears his name.
*Although you probably are a history buff if you are going to read this. After all, who else is going to read an over five hundred page book about Julius Caesar?
Julius Caesar did a great deal in his fifty-six years on this Earth. Goldsworthy covers his childhood, his time aboard, and his political rise. Throughout the book, Goldsworthy avoids any trace of presentism and also continuously reminds the reader to avoid using hindsight to come to conclusions about events. He also is carefully not to judge one side in a conflict more harshly than the other and does his best to maintain a historian's impartial distance.
"Roman rule brought to Gaul and other provinces many advantages. At a most basic level it is not unreasonable to say that more people were better off living under the Roman Empire than they were before it came or after it failed. The faults of Roman society--and there were many--were often shared by other cultures including the Gauls. Slavery is an obvious example. The violent entertainments of the arena, which came alongside literature, art and drama as part of Rome's influence, were less usual. Caesar was not responsible for Roman imperialism or for Roman culture, although he was certainly an enthusiastic agent of the Republic's expansion. His conquest of Gaul was not a fulfillment of a long-term aim or ambition, in any sense other than that he had long craved the chance to win glory. It was chance and opportunity that led to him focusing his attention on Gaul."(p.354-5)
"The benefits of Roman rule are arguable but the grim nature of Roman conquest is not. Caesar was entirely pragmatic--effectively amoral--in his use of clemency or massacre and atrocity. During the course of the conquest of Gaul his soldiers did terrible things, sometimes by order, as when they massacred the Usipetes and Tencteri, and occasionally spontaneously, as when they slaughtered women and children at Avaricum. Other Roman armies under other commanders had done similar things in past and would continue to do so in the future. Indeed atrocities as bad, or even worse, were committed by virtually all armies in the ancient world. This is not to justify what Caesar did, merely to place it into context. Warfare in antiquity was generally an extremely cruel business."(p.355)
After Caesar's conquest of Gaul he comes home to find his enemies have backed him into a corner. He can either back down in humiliating defeat or do what other disgruntled Roman generals had done since he himself was a boy: invade Rome. The Roman Civil War has become a romanticized period of history. Much like World War II, the Roman Civil War is given a story-like narrative filled with the colorful figures of the age. The power struggle between two of Rome's greatest leaders and their allies locked in a bitter conflict where there can only be one winner.
"The greatest battle of the war, fought by armies commanded by the ablest generals of the age, was about to occur and inevitably sources recounted the great omens that foreshadowed this massive shift in fortune." (p.425)
For this book does not just feature Caesar. During his life Caesar encountered incredible people. He was the nephew of the great Maris, the son-in-law of Cinna, and he stood up to Sulla when no one else would. Among his colleges during his career were allies such as Crassus, enemies like Cato, friends such as Cicero, and the most intriguing of all Pompey the Great. Caesar and Pompey were two great friends who would become the greatest of rivals. However his most famous encounter is with the great Queen of Egypt.
"When Caesar arrived in Egypt Cleopatra was nearly twenty-one years old and had been queen for almost four years. She was highly intelligent and extremely well educated in the Greek tradition. Later, she would be credited with writing books on a very broad range of subjects. Cleopatra was a noted linguist who it was claimed rarely needed an interpreter when conversing with the leaders of neighboring countries." (p.438)
One of the insights Goldsworthy makes that I find the most fascinating, is he compares Caesar's two great errors: miscalculating the mood of the Gallic aristocracy and miscalculating the mood of the Roman aristocracy to be, in fact, the same error. In both cases he felt that since his rule was good and benevolent that those who had opposed him would come to his side. In Gaul, he managed to prevail and conquer but in Rome he lost his life.
"Caesar tried to change this. In 49 BC he feared falling into the hands of his rivals, just as they were terrified of his returning at the head of an army. In each case the fears may have been ungrounded, but that did not make them any less real. Once the war began Casear paraded his clemency, sparing defeated enemies and in time allowing them to resume their careers. This was calculated policy, intended to win over uncertain and deter the enemy from fighting to the death, but that does not reduce the contrast with his opponents or earlier victors. After he had won, the pardoned Pompeians were allowed back into public life and some treated very well indeed. Once again he clearly felt that this was more likely to persuade them and others to accept his dictatorship. Regardless of his motives, there was a generosity about Caesar's behavior that was matched by no other Roman who came to power in similar circumstances. In the same way, while his lifelong backing for popular causes was intended to win support, at the same time he did implement a number of measures that were in the interest of a wide part of the population." (p.515)
Goldsworthy is right to title this book the life of a Colossus because that is what Caesar was. His life and legacy left a huge impact on the world that very few historical figures can compare. His legacy still looms large even today for both myself and my county celebrates our birthdays (July 3 and 4) in the month that bears his name.
*Although you probably are a history buff if you are going to read this. After all, who else is going to read an over five hundred page book about Julius Caesar?
February 18, 2012
The text of Adrian Goldsworthy's biography of Julius Caesar is divided into three parts, one of which the Caesar's rise of political power inhabits, his campaigns in modern-day France and England the second, those who in their own time were called aristocrats, in ours assassins, the third.
This good book is best enjoyed by those with either an excellent memory or great patience. The author seems to assume that, if you bothered to pick up this book, that you are willing to keep track of a great variety of unfamiliar names, titles, groups, and places, only some of which appear in the Glossary at the end of the book. (If the names, etc., are not unfamiliar to you, then your education was probably had superior to mine, and you don't need to read this book.)
An example from (Kindle edition) page 209: “... Gallo-Greek inscriptions using the Celtic language by Greek alphabet are fairly common finds from southern Gaul and attest to the long presence and influence of Massilia.” Who? Some old guy in a toga? I don't remember any old Greek-speaking guy in a toga named Massilia. OK, OK, rather than just skipping over it, I'll use the text search function. Oh, there it is, the only previous mention of Massilia, on page 73: “... Massilia (modern Marseilles), the old Greek colony on the coast of Gaul and now part of the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul, ...” Oh, yeah, I remember now, but, in the period between the mention on page 73 and the mention on page 209, I slept several times, took a long plane ride, called my elderly mother when necessary, drove quite a bit, exercised occasionally, ate too frequently, read the newspaper almost daily, wasted time repeatedly looking at comical pictures of kittens on the Internet, etc., etc., and this fact was lost, like some ancient text, in my personal swirls of antiquity.
Still, for a serious book about a long-ago time and place, this is a real page-turner and full of the sort of information that would get you slapped with a libel suit if the principals hadn't died 2,000 years ago, like the one (p. 146) where a guy appropriately named Clodius dresses up as a girl harp-player in order to meet his lover at a women-only religious event. I could almost see him as Tom Hanks or Robert Downey. in an ill-fitting blonde wig with pig-tails, excessive blue eye shadow, and five o'clock shadow.
I guess it's not shocking news to anyone that sometimes it can be more fun to be ignorant than learnéd. In this case, history that I should have known all along came as an interesting surprise. For the first third of this book, Caesar (even though he is a wildly successful military commander) comes off like some sort of cut-throat political hack, mostly interested in accumulating power and seducing associates' wives. When he starts campaigning in Gaul, the book lets you know effectively that he was still something of a leadership novice, but with smarts and luck on his side. His success as a general was not a foregone conclusion, and some smart money back in the capital was betting against him. It would be as if Barack Obama had sent Rahm Emmanuel off to quiet the Mexican border, and he ended up conquering all of South America. (OK, OK, that metaphor doesn't quite work because times are different, but I hope you get my drift.)
Once he's on a roll, Caesar tears hell-bent-for-leather around the rim of the Mediterranean, seemingly for the sole purpose of demonstrating to other powerful Romans that he's not someone to be messed with. Once again, the names and places come hot and heavy, and my magnifying glass came out to try to match the tiny, ill-defined maps on my Kindle ebook reader with the text it accompanied.
The book acknowledges previous generations of Caesar-biographers but doesn't align itself with any school, often taking great pains to declare itself agnostic on the great issues of Caesar-analysis, for example, to what extent Caesar's reforms were the result of a consistent political philosophy. So, this book seems a good starting point for a novice exploration of Caesar's life and works, if you are willing to be patient, see above.
This good book is best enjoyed by those with either an excellent memory or great patience. The author seems to assume that, if you bothered to pick up this book, that you are willing to keep track of a great variety of unfamiliar names, titles, groups, and places, only some of which appear in the Glossary at the end of the book. (If the names, etc., are not unfamiliar to you, then your education was probably had superior to mine, and you don't need to read this book.)
An example from (Kindle edition) page 209: “... Gallo-Greek inscriptions using the Celtic language by Greek alphabet are fairly common finds from southern Gaul and attest to the long presence and influence of Massilia.” Who? Some old guy in a toga? I don't remember any old Greek-speaking guy in a toga named Massilia. OK, OK, rather than just skipping over it, I'll use the text search function. Oh, there it is, the only previous mention of Massilia, on page 73: “... Massilia (modern Marseilles), the old Greek colony on the coast of Gaul and now part of the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul, ...” Oh, yeah, I remember now, but, in the period between the mention on page 73 and the mention on page 209, I slept several times, took a long plane ride, called my elderly mother when necessary, drove quite a bit, exercised occasionally, ate too frequently, read the newspaper almost daily, wasted time repeatedly looking at comical pictures of kittens on the Internet, etc., etc., and this fact was lost, like some ancient text, in my personal swirls of antiquity.
Still, for a serious book about a long-ago time and place, this is a real page-turner and full of the sort of information that would get you slapped with a libel suit if the principals hadn't died 2,000 years ago, like the one (p. 146) where a guy appropriately named Clodius dresses up as a girl harp-player in order to meet his lover at a women-only religious event. I could almost see him as Tom Hanks or Robert Downey. in an ill-fitting blonde wig with pig-tails, excessive blue eye shadow, and five o'clock shadow.
I guess it's not shocking news to anyone that sometimes it can be more fun to be ignorant than learnéd. In this case, history that I should have known all along came as an interesting surprise. For the first third of this book, Caesar (even though he is a wildly successful military commander) comes off like some sort of cut-throat political hack, mostly interested in accumulating power and seducing associates' wives. When he starts campaigning in Gaul, the book lets you know effectively that he was still something of a leadership novice, but with smarts and luck on his side. His success as a general was not a foregone conclusion, and some smart money back in the capital was betting against him. It would be as if Barack Obama had sent Rahm Emmanuel off to quiet the Mexican border, and he ended up conquering all of South America. (OK, OK, that metaphor doesn't quite work because times are different, but I hope you get my drift.)
Once he's on a roll, Caesar tears hell-bent-for-leather around the rim of the Mediterranean, seemingly for the sole purpose of demonstrating to other powerful Romans that he's not someone to be messed with. Once again, the names and places come hot and heavy, and my magnifying glass came out to try to match the tiny, ill-defined maps on my Kindle ebook reader with the text it accompanied.
The book acknowledges previous generations of Caesar-biographers but doesn't align itself with any school, often taking great pains to declare itself agnostic on the great issues of Caesar-analysis, for example, to what extent Caesar's reforms were the result of a consistent political philosophy. So, this book seems a good starting point for a novice exploration of Caesar's life and works, if you are willing to be patient, see above.
August 15, 2024
A biographical masterpiece of a true colossus. I could not put this down, and feel this speaks both to the intrigue of Caesar as an historical figure coupled with Goldsworthy's abilities as a writer. Goldsworthy writes, in my opinion, as every historian should write - with a mostly impartial attitude in an intelligible but matter-of-fact style that leaves room for speculation. He is working with great substrate however; as Caesar himself was a man with a brutal reputation, a proclivity for demagoguery, womanizing and military genius coupled with daring political abilities.
I recommend this book for anyone with even a passing interesting in ancient history. You could not do better than Goldsworthy on this subject.
I recommend this book for anyone with even a passing interesting in ancient history. You could not do better than Goldsworthy on this subject.
May 21, 2018
This book begins with a description of the politics of late republican Rome in the early first century (BCE.) It details Caesar's rise through the complexities of assorted offices. The main emphasis is on Caesar the military leader including good descriptions (with maps) of most of the crucial battles and the all important logistical issues. There are well balanced characterizations of both Pompey and Caesar (showing the latter as definitely less brutal). The only negative was that there was not enough about Caesar's relations with Mark Antony or Octavian.
September 3, 2018
This is door-stopper history to end all history. As detailed, and informative, and compelling as any account of Julius Caesar you're likely to find...and frankly, I doubt anyone will come up any time soon with something that will beat the quality of this scholarship & writing. It can feel overwhelming at times...but Julius Caesar was an epic, overwhelming man, and his story can't feel anything BUT overwhelming and epic. Magnificent stuff.
April 10, 2023
“The greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar.”
— Alexander Hamilton
I had trouble getting through the first 184 pages of this biography, which covers Caesar’s childhood, or whatever is known of it, and his time as a prosecutor, judge, priest, quaestor, praetor, propraetor of Spain, and consul. A lot of the author’s focus in this part of the book seems to be on the people around Caesar, namely, Cicero, rather than on Caesar himself, which I found a little distracting.
The author also argues that Caesar was not especially remarkable in any way as a child, at least not in any way that predicted future greatness, and that even his early adulthood was mostly conventional by contemporary standards. So that combined with the digressions mentioned above did not make for a fun reading at first.
The author does however note in the introduction that “[t]he focus is always on Caesar, and no more description is provided for events in which he was not personally involved than is essential.”
I guess so… Either way it’s fine because the other 335 pages are phenomenal.
It’s on page 184 that Caesar becomes proconsul of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul at age 41 as part of an agreement with the other triumvirs, and the remainder of the book is, as was his life, dominated by warfare.
Caesar fought 50 battles compared to Alexander’s 5 or so and Napoleon’s 60.
The author relies, with a healthy dose of skepticism, on Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars to tell the awe-inspiring story of his conquest of Gaul.
Perhaps inspired by the plain and simple language of the Commentaries, the author does a commendable job of giving just the “right” amount of information in recounting the battles that is neither overwhelming nor superfluous. The graphics of the battle formations are also more helpful than mere maps with arrows.
As for Caesar himself — he was a genuine populist who from a very early age understood the value of forgiveness and political favors. In the author’s words, Caesar “consistently advocated measures for the benefit of the wider population.” He is also unique among other conquerors in that he did not conquer for its own sake. While Alexander had that lust, Caesar’s conquests always served an immediate political purpose. And though he had become by late 45 BC “effectively a monarch” and then Dictator for life in early 44 BC, he was never tyrannical or bloodthirsty in the manner of Sulla. Most of the laws passed during this period were popular and good.
The Roman Republic, which had existed for some 400 years by the time of Caesar’s birth, died with him on the Ides of March, 44 BC. Rampant electoral bribery, crippling factionalism, class disparity, economic problems, political violence, and civil wars all contributed to its decline.
I was surprised to learn that most of the Conspirators were Caesar’s supporters during the Civil War, though their ringleaders, Brutus and Cassius, were not. They believed that killing Caesar would restore the Senate’s pre-Civil War standing and return the Roman Republic to its traditions — how wrong they were.
Taking off a star for the first 184 pages, but returning a half for the quality of the rest. 4.5 stars.
“I have lived long enough for either nature or glory.”
— Caius Julius Caesar, 46 BC
January 29, 2021
Though Goldsworthy tells an incredibly rich and detailed history of Caius Julius Caesar, I cannot help but see it as a somewhat bias perspective.
In saying that I had to remind myself that the time period in which this book took place was over 2000 years ago. Adrian's extensive knowledge, research and commitment to the era is truly remarkable
I would highly recommend this to anyone who is even remotely curious about the most famous Roman who ever lived!
Amazing book
In saying that I had to remind myself that the time period in which this book took place was over 2000 years ago. Adrian's extensive knowledge, research and commitment to the era is truly remarkable
I would highly recommend this to anyone who is even remotely curious about the most famous Roman who ever lived!
Amazing book
August 20, 2021
In Shakespeare’s famous play "Julius Caesar", Caesar tried his best to resist the assassination, but when he saw Brutus, he stopped struggling and said: "My child, do you have you too? "There is no direct evidence to prove the authenticity of this sentence, but it has been tacitly regarded as Caesar's final words.
It is said that Brutus was the illegitimate son of Caesar. Most of Caesar's biographies will mention this. British popular historian Adrian Goldsworthy said in his "Caesar: Life of a Giant" that Brutus is not Caesar’s son, but Brutus’ mother Sevilla is Caesar. Lovers loved all my life. There is no shortage of gossip in The Biography of Caesar. For example, the author mentions the same-sex scandal between Caesar and Nicomed IV, and also portrays Caesar’s preference to seduce married aristocratic women. However, this 700-page massive work is still very impressive. Strictly, the purpose of the author's detailed analysis is to restore a real Caesar as much as possible. The legends of Caesar are that he is a complex and multifaceted person with strong desire for power, and the scope of the author's brush strokes interprets the Roman Republic. Late political ecology. Alliances, marriages, corruption, seizure of power, reputation, and relations with neighboring nations, love and marriage are all part of politics. Sevilla is not only smart, but also one of the most influential women in the Roman social circle. This is the reason why Caesar and Sevilla have maintained the longest relationship.
Why did Brutus kill Caesar? Not because of the privacy of Caesar and his mother. This relationship was common in Rome in the first century BC. The author said: "Brutus loves philosophy, especially Stoic philosophy (emphasizing strict obligations), he knows the praise of Hellenistic literature to the righteous men who killed tyrants." In other words, Brutus is Due to the impulse of idealism, he positioned himself as a defender of justice. Caesar loves the force of the army, but he is far from a cruel man. The history of the late Roman Republic was stained with the blood of innocents, and there were countless massacres for revenge and hatred. Compared with the fierce and brutality of Marius, Sura and others, Caesar behaved rather benevolent. Reflected in his forgiveness for the defeated in the war, generosity and kindness to ordinary people, and caring and preferential treatment to soldiers. A wise political strategy has laid a good mass foundation for him, but it still fails to prevent him from being murdered. Why is Caesar considered a "tyrant"?
On February 9, 44 BC, the Senate declared Caesar to be a dictator for life, which obviously violated the Roman republican tradition. The Roman Republic expelled the tyrant Lucius in 509 BC before it was able to establish a country. Therefore, the Romans were very wary of totalitarianism. Even though the republican system has been displayed in the late stage, the republican tradition inherited by the fathers is still the spiritual pillar of the Roman people. In Chinese history, Yuan Shikai claimed that the emperor was against the trend of the republic, while Caesar went too fast and was beaten to death on the beach by the continuation of the vitality of history. The pursuit of supreme power ultimately ruined the reputation and lives of people such as Caesar and Yuan Shikai. Only by understanding this can we understand why an upright historian such as Tacitus is so dissatisfied with Caesar's actions, and why Shakespeare portrayed Caesar as the villain of arrogance and arrogance. What Caesar did not do, his heir Octavian did. Octavian knew that the traditional form must be preserved. He established the head of state, but he also advocated that the dignity and authority of the ruling class, the elders, should be respected. In this way, everything seems to have changed, and everything seems to be the same again. The sharp contradiction has been alleviated. Octavian won the opportunity for himself, and in the subsequent wars, he gradually took power into his hands and became Augustus.
In addition, the author also reminds us that Brutus’s wife Polkia’s incitement, she is Cato’s daughter. Who is Cato? The enemy who has been biting Caesar for a long time. The Roman historian Salustius once fought with Caesar, and wrote after Caesar was assassinated. The researcher found that there is a subtle entanglement in Salustius's works. He described Caesar as a "doing activist" and Cato as a "moral hero." In the late Roman Republic, people's praise and admiration of Cato represented a need and value orientation of the times, and it was a kind of adherence to the past traditions. Caesar publicly pursued the naked kingship, trying to make people declare him king, while Octavian took into account the past experience and lessons and used a more moderate way of ruling, but the essence of his ruling method is still based on the foundation laid by Caesar Above.
The direction of history is always so unexpected. Although there are many types of synergy that form history, in general, it is nothing more than the see-saw of tradition and cutting-edge. How to deal with the balance between the two has always been a historical problem.
It is said that Brutus was the illegitimate son of Caesar. Most of Caesar's biographies will mention this. British popular historian Adrian Goldsworthy said in his "Caesar: Life of a Giant" that Brutus is not Caesar’s son, but Brutus’ mother Sevilla is Caesar. Lovers loved all my life. There is no shortage of gossip in The Biography of Caesar. For example, the author mentions the same-sex scandal between Caesar and Nicomed IV, and also portrays Caesar’s preference to seduce married aristocratic women. However, this 700-page massive work is still very impressive. Strictly, the purpose of the author's detailed analysis is to restore a real Caesar as much as possible. The legends of Caesar are that he is a complex and multifaceted person with strong desire for power, and the scope of the author's brush strokes interprets the Roman Republic. Late political ecology. Alliances, marriages, corruption, seizure of power, reputation, and relations with neighboring nations, love and marriage are all part of politics. Sevilla is not only smart, but also one of the most influential women in the Roman social circle. This is the reason why Caesar and Sevilla have maintained the longest relationship.
Why did Brutus kill Caesar? Not because of the privacy of Caesar and his mother. This relationship was common in Rome in the first century BC. The author said: "Brutus loves philosophy, especially Stoic philosophy (emphasizing strict obligations), he knows the praise of Hellenistic literature to the righteous men who killed tyrants." In other words, Brutus is Due to the impulse of idealism, he positioned himself as a defender of justice. Caesar loves the force of the army, but he is far from a cruel man. The history of the late Roman Republic was stained with the blood of innocents, and there were countless massacres for revenge and hatred. Compared with the fierce and brutality of Marius, Sura and others, Caesar behaved rather benevolent. Reflected in his forgiveness for the defeated in the war, generosity and kindness to ordinary people, and caring and preferential treatment to soldiers. A wise political strategy has laid a good mass foundation for him, but it still fails to prevent him from being murdered. Why is Caesar considered a "tyrant"?
On February 9, 44 BC, the Senate declared Caesar to be a dictator for life, which obviously violated the Roman republican tradition. The Roman Republic expelled the tyrant Lucius in 509 BC before it was able to establish a country. Therefore, the Romans were very wary of totalitarianism. Even though the republican system has been displayed in the late stage, the republican tradition inherited by the fathers is still the spiritual pillar of the Roman people. In Chinese history, Yuan Shikai claimed that the emperor was against the trend of the republic, while Caesar went too fast and was beaten to death on the beach by the continuation of the vitality of history. The pursuit of supreme power ultimately ruined the reputation and lives of people such as Caesar and Yuan Shikai. Only by understanding this can we understand why an upright historian such as Tacitus is so dissatisfied with Caesar's actions, and why Shakespeare portrayed Caesar as the villain of arrogance and arrogance. What Caesar did not do, his heir Octavian did. Octavian knew that the traditional form must be preserved. He established the head of state, but he also advocated that the dignity and authority of the ruling class, the elders, should be respected. In this way, everything seems to have changed, and everything seems to be the same again. The sharp contradiction has been alleviated. Octavian won the opportunity for himself, and in the subsequent wars, he gradually took power into his hands and became Augustus.
In addition, the author also reminds us that Brutus’s wife Polkia’s incitement, she is Cato’s daughter. Who is Cato? The enemy who has been biting Caesar for a long time. The Roman historian Salustius once fought with Caesar, and wrote after Caesar was assassinated. The researcher found that there is a subtle entanglement in Salustius's works. He described Caesar as a "doing activist" and Cato as a "moral hero." In the late Roman Republic, people's praise and admiration of Cato represented a need and value orientation of the times, and it was a kind of adherence to the past traditions. Caesar publicly pursued the naked kingship, trying to make people declare him king, while Octavian took into account the past experience and lessons and used a more moderate way of ruling, but the essence of his ruling method is still based on the foundation laid by Caesar Above.
The direction of history is always so unexpected. Although there are many types of synergy that form history, in general, it is nothing more than the see-saw of tradition and cutting-edge. How to deal with the balance between the two has always been a historical problem.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 670 reviews