You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.28 AVERAGE
4.28 AVERAGE
informative
medium-paced
‘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.
adventurous
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
The perfect history book. If you’re on the fence about getting into reading history, this is the jumping off point.
adventurous
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
relaxing
medium-paced
adventurous
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
The best of AG. Fantastic trip to the Republic of Roma.
Engrossing and fascinating biography of one of the world's most important individuals. Most people know Caesar vaguely as the guy who conquered Gaul and crossed the Rubicon, but not much beyond that. Here, we get to find out how Caesar became Caesar, and Goldsworthy places him within the context of his time. It mixes a good overview of his life, the life of the Roman Republic, and his military achievements (with specific descriptions of key battles he fought in his life).
One of the best parts about rereading books from my younger days is confronting the same "formative" texts with the increased awareness that they helped spawn in the first place. My old love for history and the classics led me to Goldsworthy's Caesar, while now my newer, more mature love for history and the classics brings me back to critique it.
In narrative style Goldsworthy is unmatched by any living classical historian. In his use of sources he is familiar with the remaining primary sources, and familiar with modern scholarship as well. He does some excellent military analysis namely his belief of the use of the pila in a Legionnaire's kit, but politically he falters.
The pressure in this book is against Caesar for his actions that led to the destruction of the Roman Republic. To an extent that is true. Caesar was not the sole cause which Goldsworthy correctly shows, but the problem is the tone. The paradigm since Tacitus has been the wagging finger bemoaning the destruction of the Republic in favor of the Empire. Goldsworthy falls right in line here. That is not to fault Goldsworthy for that stumble, as I mentioned, that's been the stance for nearly two millenia and I can hardly critique Goldsworthy without passing judgment on down. Why I fault Goldsworthy is that he states throughout the text the truth about the Roman Republic: its political setup was largely based as it was on a ruling moneyed aristocracy who had a near total monopoly over not just political office, but even the act of voting, there was rampant and hideous corruption-even by modern standards, while the profit motive-strongly encouraged here-was pursued to its obvious end: the raising of private armies, and the waging of wars abroad and eventually at home as well. But, while his finger circles the button so temptingly, he pulls it back to the same wagging mantra: virtuous Republic, devastating loss. The reality of course is that not only was the empire better for the provinces-as these previously rapacious governors were reigned in, and the Roman Army at least centralized, plus the courts were placed under the jurisdiction of the Emperor. Was it just? By no means. But, it was "better" shall we say than the Republic. If classics are to have a continuing relevant meaning then the paradigm of Tacitus must end. We, the heirs of the Roman Republic, for better or for worse must kill this paradigm for there is a very good lesson contained in it about Republics and we have not been listening.
In narrative style Goldsworthy is unmatched by any living classical historian. In his use of sources he is familiar with the remaining primary sources, and familiar with modern scholarship as well. He does some excellent military analysis namely his belief of the use of the pila in a Legionnaire's kit, but politically he falters.
The pressure in this book is against Caesar for his actions that led to the destruction of the Roman Republic. To an extent that is true. Caesar was not the sole cause which Goldsworthy correctly shows, but the problem is the tone. The paradigm since Tacitus has been the wagging finger bemoaning the destruction of the Republic in favor of the Empire. Goldsworthy falls right in line here. That is not to fault Goldsworthy for that stumble, as I mentioned, that's been the stance for nearly two millenia and I can hardly critique Goldsworthy without passing judgment on down. Why I fault Goldsworthy is that he states throughout the text the truth about the Roman Republic: its political setup was largely based as it was on a ruling moneyed aristocracy who had a near total monopoly over not just political office, but even the act of voting, there was rampant and hideous corruption-even by modern standards, while the profit motive-strongly encouraged here-was pursued to its obvious end: the raising of private armies, and the waging of wars abroad and eventually at home as well. But, while his finger circles the button so temptingly, he pulls it back to the same wagging mantra: virtuous Republic, devastating loss. The reality of course is that not only was the empire better for the provinces-as these previously rapacious governors were reigned in, and the Roman Army at least centralized, plus the courts were placed under the jurisdiction of the Emperor. Was it just? By no means. But, it was "better" shall we say than the Republic. If classics are to have a continuing relevant meaning then the paradigm of Tacitus must end. We, the heirs of the Roman Republic, for better or for worse must kill this paradigm for there is a very good lesson contained in it about Republics and we have not been listening.
informative
tense