
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The primary source for the Gallic Wars is the Commentarii de Bello Gallico itself: seven books by Caesar covering 58 to 52 BCE, with an eighth book written by his officer Aulus Hirtius covering 51 to 50 BCE. The Commentarii are extraordinary both as a military document and as a political text. Caesar writes in the third person — ‘Caesar did this’, ‘Caesar ordered that’ — which creates a surface appearance of objectivity while allowing him to present his own decisions in the most favorable light without visible self-promotion. The device is brilliant and should never be forgotten when reading him.
Plutarch's Life of Caesar is the other major narrative source for this period, drawing on earlier biographers and providing material Caesar omits. Cassius Dio's account, writing two centuries later, offers a more skeptical perspective on Caesar's motivations. Modern scholarship on the Gallic Wars has focused substantially on two questions: how accurate are Caesar's figures for Gallic losses, and how deliberately was the conquest engineered as opposed to being a response to genuine crises? The scholarly consensus is that both the figures and the defensive framing are systematically manipulated, without this diminishing Caesar's achievement as a commander.
Primary Sources
By Hugo PrudentiusThe primary source for the Gallic Wars is the Commentarii de Bello Gallico itself: seven books by Caesar covering 58 to 52 BCE, with an eighth book written by his officer Aulus Hirtius covering 51 to 50 BCE. The Commentarii are extraordinary both as a military document and as a political text. Caesar writes in the third person — ‘Caesar did this’, ‘Caesar ordered that’ — which creates a surface appearance of objectivity while allowing him to present his own decisions in the most favorable light without visible self-promotion. The device is brilliant and should never be forgotten when reading him.
Plutarch's Life of Caesar is the other major narrative source for this period, drawing on earlier biographers and providing material Caesar omits. Cassius Dio's account, writing two centuries later, offers a more skeptical perspective on Caesar's motivations. Modern scholarship on the Gallic Wars has focused substantially on two questions: how accurate are Caesar's figures for Gallic losses, and how deliberately was the conquest engineered as opposed to being a response to genuine crises? The scholarly consensus is that both the figures and the defensive framing are systematically manipulated, without this diminishing Caesar's achievement as a commander.
Primary Sources