This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Commentarii de Bello Gallico article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is remarkably little about the text itself: there isn't even a mention of how many libri there are! A section with a short outline of the contents of each book would be immensely helpful. 2A02:A44A:104F:1:A961:B4BD:49D1:DA26 ( talk) 13:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
From the article: Notable chapters describe Gaulish costume (VI, 13). Does anyone know what this should refer to? I don't think there is any reference to clothing in this chapter.
Didn't Hirtius write part of The Gallic Wars? That's what my edition of it says, at least. Kuralyov 00:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nods. Hiritus wrote Book VII. Also, it's Commentaria de Bello Gallica, not De Bello Gallico. There are a few other errors. Sorry, I've just spent the last year studying the work. Dastal 03:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Um...the article on Hiritus says he wrote book eight. I find it hard to believe he wrote book seven because that is the famous part with Vercingetorix. Could someone clarify? User:15lsoucy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.16.42 ( talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hirtius wrote book 8 definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.171.216 ( talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
How historically accurate is it?
Caesar claims that he captured documents from the Helvetii stating that 368,000 people had joined the migration and which listed 92,000, by name, as fighters/militia. These numbers are logistically impossible, as Delbrück has noted, and you would need a fair many scrolls for the names alone, more with any identifying information, and so on. Caesar, at best, is exaggerating both the numbers and the detail of any documentation. 173.66.211.53 ( talk) 21:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the earliest vetted manuscript of the text? Can something be added about the history of the text. Has the original manuscript been lost? Do any ancient copies remain? Are modern editions derived from a single medieval source or many? Zeimusu | Talk page 14:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Christies there are 75 early copies in existence, some dating from the 9th century (i.e. at least 850 years after the original). -- Chilukar ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I remember my history teacher translating "bello" as "beautiful" (no doubt with the French "belle" in mind), and I remember hearing that this is a common mistake made by people who don't know any Latin. Perhaps we should add something about that to the article, if we can find a source for it.
Should this article not have an English title, e.g. "Commentaries on the Gallic War"? This is after all an encyclopedia, which is aimed at general readers, most of whom don't know Latin. I'd suggest this for any other Latin works that are listed by their Latin title as well. -- Nicknack009 08:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that a more accurate translation of the title would be "Commentaries on the Gallic War." Bello Gallico is singular, whereas Bellis Gallicis would be plural. This is only a minor detail, but as it says "literally," it would be best to actually give a literal translation. Fenoxielo 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that section is completely unrelated to the article, in any case it should be in the article about the HBO series. 168.234.230.217 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
How do I format a citation of this work as a reference within the article Suessiones? What is the publication date? Do I list the reference as " Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Gaius Julius Caesar, 57 bc, p. ii" ? The wars were around 57 bc, the memoirs must have been published at least a couple of years later.
There is talk that Caesar wrote the Commentarii more than a decade after the Gallic Wars, based on his tone and criticism towards some of his lieutenants. These lieutenants he would have been in good favor with during the Gallic Wars, but they betrayed him in later wars. -Erin553 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.210.5 ( talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed the description of the work as Caesar's "third-person account" to "firsthand account ... written as a third-person narrative." This is an important distinction, as the significance of his use of third person is the subject of much scholarly discussion. Cassius Dio wrote a third-person account of the war, for example; he wasn't there. Caesar's account is obviously eyewitness and firsthand; his use of the third person to refer to himself is a rhetorical strategy. Discussion of this may be found in many sources, but particularly the collection of essays Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. Also, the section on "Criticisms" is completely unsupported by citations from either primary or secondary sources, even though it deals with interpretation and opinion. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The above redirects to this article, and some sources refer to it by that name. What's the difference between Bello Gallico and Ballum Gallicum, and which is the correct name to use? Does it depend on the context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.246.1 ( talk) 17:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What is this about? A question about the origin of the text has been asked here above. The answer appears to be that we deal with the medieval text that was presented as ancient by origin and ascribed to an ancient character. What is the proof that it had indeed been written about 2 millennia ago? This is the only question relevant to the subject. Axxxion ( talk) 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I recall some sources claiming that their tribal names are Celtic, and the same for the Nemetes and Tribocci who Caesar also identifies as Germani. Right now the article refers to anachronistic "Germans," I'm not sure if these references, in this section, are intended to refer to the Usipetes and Tencteri or to other groups also. 173.66.211.53 ( talk) 05:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
In reply to the above: Book IV describes the Usipetes and Tencteri as "Germani", therefore it is reasonable for a description of Book IV to refer to them in the same manner: as Germans. The article is about the Commentarii de Bello Gallico, not whether tribal names are Celtic or Germanic.
75.92.14.80 (
talk) 15:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
So I'm not sure how relevant it is, but druids and the culture of Gaul are described in book VI immediately before the German culture is described. Caesar writes about them in sections 13-20, (although I'm not sure if that is just how my Latin textbook and AP test divide the book) and it seems that it is pretty significant considering the fact that it is mentioned in the article on the druids (and the AP test too I guess). Is this information relevant enough to be in the summary of book VI, or is it a minor thing? (The only reason I noticed it was missing is because I'm studying for my AP Latin midterm, so the information could be of use to the people who take the AP exam). EDIT: Forgot this 65.27.230.73 ( talk) 00:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the large "contents" section of this article. Has anyone managed to compare this to the actual text or scholarship surrounding it? Take for example this line from the former "contents" section "he attacks and defeats the remaining Germans who are disadvantaged by the absence of their leadership". This is intended to be a summary of 14 and 15 of book 4. However, read the section and the scholarship around it—these chapters describe the massacre of an apparently very large number of women and children from the displaced Tencteri and Usipetes. Seriously, WTF? This sort of apologetic nonsense doesn't here or anywhere else that has the slightest pretense of respectability. No wonder none of it is sourced. Delete it all and start over. :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, taking the massacre in question as an example: Caesar does not even "whitewash" the massacre; he would have seen no need to for neither he nor his intended audience would have seen anything immoral in his actions. Caesar, rather, simply uses the massacre as an example of a clever military tactic. That being said, Caesar only gives a couple of sentences to the event - he does not even seem to consider it of any importance. So, when presenting a summary of the text how are we to reflect Ceasar's indifference? CIreland ( talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.My thought was that this edit of the 19th is the neutral corner. Dhtwiki ( talk) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, the word "omnis" does not mean "whole," it means "all," to translate it as "Gaul is a whole divided into three parts," the Latin would be "Gallia est tota divisa..."
I hope that we can find a translation that matches up with correct Latin grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:101:FA2E:81CF:7DA0:61C8:10A7 ( talk) 19:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
While the text is attributed to Julius Caesar is there actually any evidence for this claim? Why is the text not understood for instance as a work commissioned by Caesar to advance his political aspirations? Also, how recent are the manuscripts? The actual work would be BC, but if the oldest manuscripts only date back a few centuries questions about reliability can be raised. While I've done a quick search I'm not seeing anyone discussing such things and it appears a lot is being taken on faith - that the current text is the original, that Julius Caesar is the author etc. Other texts seem to be subject to far more skepticism than this, just curious why. If those questions can be answered this article would be a lot stronger. 人族 ( talk) 03:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the influence on two modern works, by two different Napoleon, could be mentioned :
Elfast ( talk) 14:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is biased from a post colonial stand point. The arguments that are made to invalidate the commentaries can be used to invalidate all written Roman history. 50.70.76.39 ( talk) 14:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This article has ten Latin quotations from the book, at least three of which are not translated into English. Since we don't expect our readers to be fluent in Latin, I don't see the value in any of these quotations, and most especially the untranslated ones. I think we should remove the Latin and just give the English translations, except for the discussion of the well-known opening words in the lead. A sentence like His brother, Dumnorix had committed several acts against the Romans because he wanted to become king quod eorum adventu potentia eius deminuta et Diviciacus frater in antiquum locum gratiae atque honoris sit restitutus and summam in spem per Helvetios regni obtinendi venire
seems like it must be fairly opaque to almost all readers.
CodeTalker (
talk) 22:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Henige is a specialist in African studies, and the citations all point towards a single minor paper of his, yet the article cites him extensively as though his thoughts represented the mainstream view. It's especially odd as the exact same issue permeates the Gallic Wars article. 137.103.149.109 ( talk) 04:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Caesar claims that he was able to estimate the population of the Helvetii because in their camp there was a census, written in Greek on tablets... But Henige points out that such a census would have been difficult to achieve by the Gauls, that it would make no sense to be written in Greek by non-Greek tribes
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Commentarii de Bello Gallico article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is remarkably little about the text itself: there isn't even a mention of how many libri there are! A section with a short outline of the contents of each book would be immensely helpful. 2A02:A44A:104F:1:A961:B4BD:49D1:DA26 ( talk) 13:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
From the article: Notable chapters describe Gaulish costume (VI, 13). Does anyone know what this should refer to? I don't think there is any reference to clothing in this chapter.
Didn't Hirtius write part of The Gallic Wars? That's what my edition of it says, at least. Kuralyov 00:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nods. Hiritus wrote Book VII. Also, it's Commentaria de Bello Gallica, not De Bello Gallico. There are a few other errors. Sorry, I've just spent the last year studying the work. Dastal 03:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Um...the article on Hiritus says he wrote book eight. I find it hard to believe he wrote book seven because that is the famous part with Vercingetorix. Could someone clarify? User:15lsoucy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.16.42 ( talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hirtius wrote book 8 definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.171.216 ( talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
How historically accurate is it?
Caesar claims that he captured documents from the Helvetii stating that 368,000 people had joined the migration and which listed 92,000, by name, as fighters/militia. These numbers are logistically impossible, as Delbrück has noted, and you would need a fair many scrolls for the names alone, more with any identifying information, and so on. Caesar, at best, is exaggerating both the numbers and the detail of any documentation. 173.66.211.53 ( talk) 21:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the earliest vetted manuscript of the text? Can something be added about the history of the text. Has the original manuscript been lost? Do any ancient copies remain? Are modern editions derived from a single medieval source or many? Zeimusu | Talk page 14:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Christies there are 75 early copies in existence, some dating from the 9th century (i.e. at least 850 years after the original). -- Chilukar ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I remember my history teacher translating "bello" as "beautiful" (no doubt with the French "belle" in mind), and I remember hearing that this is a common mistake made by people who don't know any Latin. Perhaps we should add something about that to the article, if we can find a source for it.
Should this article not have an English title, e.g. "Commentaries on the Gallic War"? This is after all an encyclopedia, which is aimed at general readers, most of whom don't know Latin. I'd suggest this for any other Latin works that are listed by their Latin title as well. -- Nicknack009 08:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that a more accurate translation of the title would be "Commentaries on the Gallic War." Bello Gallico is singular, whereas Bellis Gallicis would be plural. This is only a minor detail, but as it says "literally," it would be best to actually give a literal translation. Fenoxielo 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that section is completely unrelated to the article, in any case it should be in the article about the HBO series. 168.234.230.217 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
How do I format a citation of this work as a reference within the article Suessiones? What is the publication date? Do I list the reference as " Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Gaius Julius Caesar, 57 bc, p. ii" ? The wars were around 57 bc, the memoirs must have been published at least a couple of years later.
There is talk that Caesar wrote the Commentarii more than a decade after the Gallic Wars, based on his tone and criticism towards some of his lieutenants. These lieutenants he would have been in good favor with during the Gallic Wars, but they betrayed him in later wars. -Erin553 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.210.5 ( talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed the description of the work as Caesar's "third-person account" to "firsthand account ... written as a third-person narrative." This is an important distinction, as the significance of his use of third person is the subject of much scholarly discussion. Cassius Dio wrote a third-person account of the war, for example; he wasn't there. Caesar's account is obviously eyewitness and firsthand; his use of the third person to refer to himself is a rhetorical strategy. Discussion of this may be found in many sources, but particularly the collection of essays Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. Also, the section on "Criticisms" is completely unsupported by citations from either primary or secondary sources, even though it deals with interpretation and opinion. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The above redirects to this article, and some sources refer to it by that name. What's the difference between Bello Gallico and Ballum Gallicum, and which is the correct name to use? Does it depend on the context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.246.1 ( talk) 17:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What is this about? A question about the origin of the text has been asked here above. The answer appears to be that we deal with the medieval text that was presented as ancient by origin and ascribed to an ancient character. What is the proof that it had indeed been written about 2 millennia ago? This is the only question relevant to the subject. Axxxion ( talk) 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I recall some sources claiming that their tribal names are Celtic, and the same for the Nemetes and Tribocci who Caesar also identifies as Germani. Right now the article refers to anachronistic "Germans," I'm not sure if these references, in this section, are intended to refer to the Usipetes and Tencteri or to other groups also. 173.66.211.53 ( talk) 05:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
In reply to the above: Book IV describes the Usipetes and Tencteri as "Germani", therefore it is reasonable for a description of Book IV to refer to them in the same manner: as Germans. The article is about the Commentarii de Bello Gallico, not whether tribal names are Celtic or Germanic.
75.92.14.80 (
talk) 15:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
So I'm not sure how relevant it is, but druids and the culture of Gaul are described in book VI immediately before the German culture is described. Caesar writes about them in sections 13-20, (although I'm not sure if that is just how my Latin textbook and AP test divide the book) and it seems that it is pretty significant considering the fact that it is mentioned in the article on the druids (and the AP test too I guess). Is this information relevant enough to be in the summary of book VI, or is it a minor thing? (The only reason I noticed it was missing is because I'm studying for my AP Latin midterm, so the information could be of use to the people who take the AP exam). EDIT: Forgot this 65.27.230.73 ( talk) 00:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the large "contents" section of this article. Has anyone managed to compare this to the actual text or scholarship surrounding it? Take for example this line from the former "contents" section "he attacks and defeats the remaining Germans who are disadvantaged by the absence of their leadership". This is intended to be a summary of 14 and 15 of book 4. However, read the section and the scholarship around it—these chapters describe the massacre of an apparently very large number of women and children from the displaced Tencteri and Usipetes. Seriously, WTF? This sort of apologetic nonsense doesn't here or anywhere else that has the slightest pretense of respectability. No wonder none of it is sourced. Delete it all and start over. :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, taking the massacre in question as an example: Caesar does not even "whitewash" the massacre; he would have seen no need to for neither he nor his intended audience would have seen anything immoral in his actions. Caesar, rather, simply uses the massacre as an example of a clever military tactic. That being said, Caesar only gives a couple of sentences to the event - he does not even seem to consider it of any importance. So, when presenting a summary of the text how are we to reflect Ceasar's indifference? CIreland ( talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.My thought was that this edit of the 19th is the neutral corner. Dhtwiki ( talk) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, the word "omnis" does not mean "whole," it means "all," to translate it as "Gaul is a whole divided into three parts," the Latin would be "Gallia est tota divisa..."
I hope that we can find a translation that matches up with correct Latin grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:101:FA2E:81CF:7DA0:61C8:10A7 ( talk) 19:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
While the text is attributed to Julius Caesar is there actually any evidence for this claim? Why is the text not understood for instance as a work commissioned by Caesar to advance his political aspirations? Also, how recent are the manuscripts? The actual work would be BC, but if the oldest manuscripts only date back a few centuries questions about reliability can be raised. While I've done a quick search I'm not seeing anyone discussing such things and it appears a lot is being taken on faith - that the current text is the original, that Julius Caesar is the author etc. Other texts seem to be subject to far more skepticism than this, just curious why. If those questions can be answered this article would be a lot stronger. 人族 ( talk) 03:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the influence on two modern works, by two different Napoleon, could be mentioned :
Elfast ( talk) 14:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is biased from a post colonial stand point. The arguments that are made to invalidate the commentaries can be used to invalidate all written Roman history. 50.70.76.39 ( talk) 14:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This article has ten Latin quotations from the book, at least three of which are not translated into English. Since we don't expect our readers to be fluent in Latin, I don't see the value in any of these quotations, and most especially the untranslated ones. I think we should remove the Latin and just give the English translations, except for the discussion of the well-known opening words in the lead. A sentence like His brother, Dumnorix had committed several acts against the Romans because he wanted to become king quod eorum adventu potentia eius deminuta et Diviciacus frater in antiquum locum gratiae atque honoris sit restitutus and summam in spem per Helvetios regni obtinendi venire
seems like it must be fairly opaque to almost all readers.
CodeTalker (
talk) 22:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Henige is a specialist in African studies, and the citations all point towards a single minor paper of his, yet the article cites him extensively as though his thoughts represented the mainstream view. It's especially odd as the exact same issue permeates the Gallic Wars article. 137.103.149.109 ( talk) 04:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Caesar claims that he was able to estimate the population of the Helvetii because in their camp there was a census, written in Greek on tablets... But Henige points out that such a census would have been difficult to achieve by the Gauls, that it would make no sense to be written in Greek by non-Greek tribes