Salvete.
In this sentence:
Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus et ditissimus fuit Orgetorix. Is coniurationem nobilitatis fecit…
There’s one thing I don’t understand.
Did Orgertorix conspire with the nobility or against the nobility?
David
In my translation, it says that he conspires WITH the nobility and persuades the people etc etc.
But I guess you can see it either way: He probably talks to the other noble Helvetians about it, but in the end, they are the ones whom Orgetorix is trying to trick out of power, since he also conspires with Casticus and Dumnorix (Dumnorix whom Caesar gets into trouble with later, as he is about to cross over to Britain, I think, unless there are more)
Congratulations on reading a real man’s book - Everyone else I’ve met insist that the Gallic War is the most boring piece of prose in classical Latin (only topped by the Civil War). I like it though.
If you have trouble understanding the part where Caesar builds a bridge across the Rhine (IV, 17), ask away, I once bought a book discussing the various ideas of how it looked. That part is also a testament to Caesars willpower: Caesar makes up his mind to cross the Rhine, but ships aren’t grand enough for Romans, so he decides to build a bridge although this is a most difficult assigntment - and if it doesn’t work out, he isn’t going to cross the Rhine at all! Of course it works out - in only 10 days. (using some of his own words)
I guess I wouldn’t call de Bello Gallico a “real man’s book” (I wouldn’t call anything that) but it is valuable because it allows us to look at real people operating in the culture and technology of the times. By the way, it isn’t boring, not nearly so much as Catullus, Horatius Flaccus, or especially Vergilius Maro’s worthless Aeneid which has been known to induce immediate snoring (even the author wanted to burn it as soon as he politically could without fear of loss of his own life and dignity) .
Caesar does talk about Roman dignity in IV,17 but, reading between the lines, I think it really refers to the dignity that would be lost if part of his army would be caught on one side of the river and be defeated in detail. I’ve read elsewhere that the Roman legions could best be described as “combat engineers” and in this case the application of those abilities and techniques makes sense. He refers to the width and rapid current of the river. Crossing piecemeal in boats would expose his troops to the viscissitudes (I love that word) of the elements, i.e. being scattered by the current, and subsequent exposure in small groups to the enemy. A bridge is a practical solution, it’s within reach, and Caesar has time to build it.
He also preferred to build bridges across the Rhine. Same reason. It is much easier and faster to move men and material across a bridge, (especially in a hostile environment) than it is in boats. Some cases in point are: a) operation Market-Garden in WWII where the British and Americans preferred to capture the bridges en route to Arnhem even though they had boats to cross the rivers with and, b) later on, the approach to the Rhine, where they much preferred to find a standing bridge, even though it would attract enemy artillery fire, than use boats.
Final point: I think you’ve always got to read into Caesar the political reasons behind his words. I don’t think he lies so much as he emphasizes what is expedient. That’s part of what makes it so exciting.
You have a point! … nah, I’d rather keep my boyish cowboys vs. indians dreams intact and read Caesar into a much more romanticising context, i.e. a man’s man waging a war upon barbarians just to show them who’s boss, building a bridge just because it’s possible and knocking over the republic just because he’s the best.
Don’t make me rationalise antiquity! Are you saying that Athena didn’t help Odysseus after all as well?
(after all, I am only nineteen, a mere boy)
To comment on your first comment, I do find especially Horatius very nice to read, if for nothing else, then just for the pure poetic value of his poems. I would never choose a government report on the Iraqi war over a Shakespeare play either. I think poetry has value even if it has no rational good to offer - just like Christmas and oher traditions.