History, they say, is written by the victors. That being so 'The Civil War' should be taken with a large dose of salt. Here is Caesar presenting for posterity his side of the story. It makes an interesting story, but I kept wondering, 'what about the rest?', could Caesar really have been so much the 'good guy' as he pretends? Caesar takes great pains to show himself as just, at one-point delaying battle to minimize bloodshed, always making fair judgments, magnanimous in victory. Others are presented in a far less positive light, with the excesses that were possible clearly shown.
In some ways the three other histories included here 'The Alexandrian War', 'The African War' and 'The Spanish War', written it is thought by Caesar's lieutenants, makes more interesting reading. Here political correctness, particularly regarding barbarian foreigners is replaced by a gritty directness which may better represent the Roman feeling common at the time. Caesar is still the hero, but his control is less than perfect and he is unable to prevent his troops killing enemy soldiers who have come begging for protection. Unfortunately, these three histories are frequently much less well written, and for a clear and concise description of troop deployments and battle tactics 'The Civil War' is hard to beat.
Although I kept wondering how objective the writing is, I certainly enjoyed this book and can recommend it, especially to anyone who enjoyed 'Time Commanders' on the BBC, this is the real thing!
Penguin Classics, 360 pages
Comments