Talk:Commentarii de Bello Gallico

message: 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)
thread_title:  The book itself 

message: How historically accurate is it?
:Good question, because the Gauls left no written records to speak of. And the cliche is, of course, that history is written by the victors.
:That said, "though its publication was doubtless timed to impress on the mind of the Roman people the great services rendered by Caesar to Rome, [it] stands the test of criticism as far as it is possible to apply it, and the accuracy of its narrative has never been seriously shaken", as one website puts it. Obviously it's biased towards the Roman perspective on things, but this bias can be filtered out. 82.92.119.11 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it is inaccurate and indeed is contradicted by other parts of the same work (eg Germans and agriculture, Gauls use of writing). This is probably because Caesar, like many others, draws on the lost works of Poseidonis and then adds facts observed at first hand. In general its a mine of useful and generally accurate facts, which are often corroborated by archaeology. --Nantonos 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  don't believe the part about teh stags with no joints in their legs, and the Gauls used to saw a tree at the base while the creature leaned sleeping upon it, so the tree would collapse, along with the stag. I pretty sure that part was imagined1Nathraq 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True - the whole part he wrote in order to divert attention from his debâcle is less reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44a:104f:1:a961:b4bd:49d1:da26 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Don't suppose "listing by name" means listing the name of each individual.  I could easily have been "Slamix - 1200 men; Bigdix - 1450 men; .." and so on.  See many of the Biblical listings for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44a:104f:1:a961:b4bd:49d1:da26 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's over two thousand years old, I would be unbelieveably surprised if the original manuscript made it. --AiusEpsi 00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the text 

message: 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.
:Not to step on your or your teacher's toes, but that's rubbish. — Mütze 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I know it is. However, what I meant was that if this is a common mistake, we should mention that it is in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.180.130 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Incorrect Translation 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think is fine as is, and is now widely wikilinked under its present name. --Nantonos 17:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect translation of title 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think if anything just a basic summary of the book should be added, making such quips relevant. After all the Vorenus and Pullo reference is brief at best. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vorenus and Pullo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title: Publication date

message: 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)
thread_title:  third person and "Criticisms" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's a matter of Latin grammar. Bellum Gallicum is the nominative case, the form used when a noun phrase is the subject of a sentence or stands on its own. Bello Gallico is the dative case, the form used when the noun phrase follows a preposition, in this case De, of or about. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  ABLATIVE case ;) - Correctly it should be either "Bellum Gallicum" or "De bello Gallico", not simply "Bello Gallivo".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.16.90 (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In short: Bellum Gallicum means "Gallic War", and De Bello Gallico means "On the Gallic War". So the former refers to the war itself and the latter refers to the book. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellum Gallicum 

message: 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)
replies: text: I find it difficult to believe that anyone from the 8th century who knew Latin would have taken the time and the energy to compose two fictitious accounts of two separate wars purely as an elaborate farce. You will find that there are very few surviving manuscripts of anything dating from before the fall of Rome. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there is no strictly scientific way to prove that the text was actually composed by the guy he has been ascribed to since 9th century. What had been going on for 9 hundred (!) years prior?Axxxion (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) There is no strictly scientific way to prove that the Axxxion who composed the above line is actually the same Axxxion who registered the account. Common sense tells me that it is almost certainly true, but there is no way to prove it scientifically. Luckily we're not talking about science, we're talking about history. As far as I can tell, the scholars of Roman history are unanimous in agreeing that Julius Caesar did in fact exist, and the 9th century manuscript is in fact a copy of one he wrote himself. This is established to well within the level of uncertainty inherent in their field.2) Your edits to the article are unconstructive. Please confine your discussion of this topic to the talk page until it is resolved.--Aurochs (Talk | Block) 11:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

text: If you have evidence of scholarly debate about the authorship of the book, then find reliable sources that refer to it. This article could certainly be improved with information about source texts, Latin style etc. But simply claiming there is doubt for no reason other than generic scepticism is not how we do things. Paul B (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

text: This post was a joke and an insult to the intelligence of thousands. Italia2006 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is a joke 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Are the Usipetes and Tencteri necessarily Germanic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Druids 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proven Authorship? 

message: Maybe the influence on two modern works, by two different Napoleon, could be mentioned :
*Napoléon Bonaparte's "Précis des guerres de César "
*and the second volume of Napoléon III's "Histoire de Jules César"
Elfast (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern influence : Napoléon ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No citations and biased 

message: 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  seems like it must be fairly opaque to almost all readers. CodeTalker (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, go right ahead. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. CodeTalker (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin quotes