Ceaser's Conquest of Gaul (The Book)

[Kataki]

What are your opinions on the book written by Ceaser? I'm currently starting to read it and its actually not that hard to follow but it is pretty obvious its propaganda to an extent. That aside though it is still an incredibly interesting read.

How much of it is considered fact?

[Hanny]

What are your opinions on the book written by Ceaser? I'm currently starting to read it and its actually not that hard to follow but it is pretty obvious its propaganda to an extent. That aside though it is still an incredibly interesting read.

How much of it is considered fact?

which fact did you hav ein mind?.

[Tiberius Tosi]

He stuck very close to the truth on the main events, as most people in Rome would have known the main events rather or not he knew it. The numbers he gives for enemy armies is usually an obvious inflation, but nonetheless he was usually fighting forces much larger than his. It is full of minor propaganda, but not anything too big. He likes to rub off blame for losses on dead people with little family history who would not be too disgraced by doing so, instead of blaming those actually responsible. He is fairly truthful even in some of his lies (he never takes blame for Gergovia or says that the miscommunication was most likely his fault, but does explain what went wrong).

All the events are considered fact basically, some minor details are said to be exaggerations or flat out lies to get Rome more interested in Britain and Germany (certain animals being in Germany stick out in my mind, he describes some animals in ridiculous proportion and claims that no Roman had even seen them, which they most certainly had).

[Kataki]

Thanks very much Tiberius, thats what I was looking for.

I wonder how truthful his descriptions of the various tribes are.

Either way its amazing reading history written by those whom it involved.

[Stavroforos]

He is accurate in his portrayal of battles and numbers, and such, but the propaganda comes in when he relegates blame to authors for his own faults or doesn't acknowledge his own failings.

[Kataki]

Ya I've noticed that but it doesnt bother me that much.

[SigniferOne]

Actually historians do not view either of Caesar's works as direct propaganda. Sure, a little description could be off here or there, but by and large it is treated as a very trustworthy account of what it describes.