I have seen some people claim that Caesar committed genocide against the Gauls during his campaigns. What do historians think of this claim? Do his actions fulfill the criteria in order to be a genocide?
Either way - Caesar needed to achieve victories, not only in Gaul, but over the Roman populace. To do that, he published his famous "correspondence" - what we know today as his Gallic Wars, works which were stunning successes at the time
Just curious: I understood we know almost nothing about the writing, publication, or reception of the commentarii. I'm familiar with the bit of Cicero you quoted. Do we know how Cicero got them? Who else got them? How wide was the publication? When were they written? I've read several theories (written in the winter season as reports to the Senate - read aloud in assemblies - I can probably think up some others) but I don't think any of those are convincing. What do you think about it?
No, we know quite a bit about the commentaries' authorship. We know, for example, that dispatches like Caesar's were sent to the senate. This model explains the reasons behind many of Caesar's idiosyncrasies, such as his insistence on writing in the third person (since these dispatches would be read aloud to the senate), the occasional breaks in narrative style (which are usually indicative of a separate author, such as the section on the Rhine bridge which may have been written by one of Caesar's subordinates who actually built the bridge), and the extensive attention to details that normal historians wouldn't have cared about. That's why Caesar's commentaries are actually a pretty good historical source, at least for figuring out what actually happened, even if we can't trust the conclusions and justifications Caesar gives.
Can you give me a source for this? I know one prominent scholar who disagrees with all of what you've written here. If I've been mislead I would appreciate the correction.
What scholar is this? I've never heard anyone express a contrary opinion on this. This is the opinion of Gelzer (who goes to quite some length, as he does with everything, to back himself up), Badian, hell even Meier thinks this if I remember right. In fact, provided that I'm remembering his article correctly, Badian attempted to prove (right after he proved the date of Caesar's birth) that this was the only feasible way they could have been written. Although even Gelzer admits that since they must have been published some time after the time when they were written, and it's quite clear that significant editing went on to make them really readable as a group (and, inevitably, to strengthen Caesar's picture--Gelzer theorizes that they were published early in the Civil Wars).
I heard Morstein-Marx talk about this a couple of years ago. His point was that there is no evidence in the sources, other than Caesar's works themselves, for anything like them to have existed, and all theories about publication are speculation by modern scholars. From what you wrote here, I suppose he is right.
How stupid of me to have forgotten that Morstein-Marx proposes this view. Durrrr. I don't know much at all about his scholarship, but technically he is right that this is guesswork, although it's highly-informed guesswork (it's actually better than the work that's used to figure out the story behind Seneca's letters, although we probably won't know if Lucilius was real or not). But this view of Caesar's work is not merely the construction of modern scholars. During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance they understood that these works could not have been compiled at a single time but must have been the result of the compilation of several different logs, although they didn't understand what exactly they were for and they usually didn't agree with each other--we actually find a lot of marginal notes in some of our manuscripts trying to identify the breaks and differences between logs, although we generally don't know how far back these notes go, whether they were accepted, and what exactly the monks are drawing upon to make these conclusions. Caesar's third-person style definitely stuck out for Renaissance Latinists, who were divided into two camps, one of which thought that Caesar was just a badass who understood his own awesomeness and just felt compelled to write in the third person, and another that believed the works to be written with the intention of recitation by a third party (as opposed to the author himself, as was convention). I don't know a whole hell of a lot about that so I'll leave it there. But we do know that similar dispatches existed (they are referred to by Tacitus and others as "letters from the generals") and we have a few surviving dispatches to and from the senate that closely parallel Caesar's style (Symmachus).
Is that proof? No, and you could definitely go either way on this one. I'm going to stress once more that I don't really know Morstein-Marx's work very well outside of reputation, so I can't really comment on what he says but I will say that if his argument really does boil down to what you've stated it seems a bit misleading to say that nothing like Caesar exists and that it's all the speculation of modern scholars. It's a theory by no means limited to modern scholarship (more like a traditional view that modern scholars have mostly adopted, much like with Seneca and even some work of Cicero) and we do know of similar accounts (we even have some). Does that really make his point less valid? Probably not, I think, since in the end he does have a valid argument. Still one that I don't really buy but like I said you can go either way on this one until we find some irrefutable reference to their compilation in the material (speaking of this and Seneca, even if they somehow prove that Lucilius was a real person I'll still insist that the self-righteous old snob invented himself a friend because he didn't have any :P)
Think you could tell me where you've seen this one? :)
Okay, I must admit I'm in the 'a guy at the pub told me' category. Over at r/totalwar, someone mentioned that Caesar committed genocide against the Gauls. I didn't think it was true but I got interested nonetheless. I'm kind of a Caesar fan so checking if I was biased was one of my main objectives. So I came here to ask my question.
By the way, thanks for all the excellent answers guys!
Not a historian but here's my duo denarii
Oxford defines "genocide" as:
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group:
Which seems a bit broad depending on how you read "deliberate". But in the case of Caesar I would say no. He invaded Gaul (ostensibly to protect Gallic allies from the migrating Helvetii) to seek battle and conquer territories/tribes to increase his dignitas in Rome. He wasn't interested in killing Gauls specifically, if the Illyrians had presented an opportunity (his other province) he would have campaigned there (and we would have the Illyrian Wars instead).
The Romans were a practical people, they didn't bother with genocide as it's a waste of potential tax payers and slaves. Part of the reasons the Romans were so successful was their ability to incorporate defeated people into the Roman state. Half of their armies in the 2nd Punic Wars were comprised of allies - that is conquered states that were required to supply soldiers for Rome's wars. And over a hundred years later these allies would fight a war with Rome in order to become Romans not to break free from it.
If all of Gaul had submitted then Caesar would have simply re-organized it into a Roman province and then returned to march in a triumph for adding so much new territory to the Roman state. Obviously the various tribes weren't about to go down without a fight and gave Caesar many opportunities for battles.
This is correct and I'd add that there is no evidence (archaeological or textual) that Gaul was significantly de-populated by the Gallic Wars, any more than you would expect from your typical years-long war.
Also, Rome would have no interest or even ability to conduct a genocidal campaign against the Gauls. Remember that their base of support in the area was in Gallia Narbonensis and Rome had controlled Cisalpine Gaul for generations at the time of Caesar's conquest. Gauls were already part of the Republic, becoming more so all the time, and likely formed a significant portion of Caesar's conquering army. This is true even when you put aside the fact that its pretty difficult to convince a group of people to accept your rule (as the Gauls ultimately did) if your goal was to deliberately massacre them to no end.
I completely agree. I just want to point out as further evidence that Caesar's war wasn't racially motivated that a VERY LARGE NUMBER of ethnic Gauls lived in Cisalpine Gaul, which, along with Illyria and Transalpine Gaul, was one of Caesar's provinces. If it were an intended genocide of a people, he should have also been waging war against Gauls there. Instead, it seems he rather relied on the population of Cisalpine Gaul for support and acted as their patron.
He recruited several legions from Cisalpine Gaul if I remember correctly.
Yes he did. In addition much of the work that Caesar and Crassus had pushed for advocating the expansion of citizen's rights to the Transpadanes assisted Caesar in his campaigns, since it made him the first Romancommander to be capable of recruiting large amounts of troops from that area.
1 missing reply
Think you could tell me where you've seen this one? :)
Because the answer - the short one, at least, is absolutely not. First off, we're going to define what in the world a "genocide" actually is - I've seen that term tossed around quite a bit recently, and for people who don't understand the connotations, perhaps it's not quite as...extreme as it might otherwise seem. Genocide is defined as: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Caesar's war in Gaul was none of the above.
Let's put it in perspective. When Caesar won the great command in Gaul, he'd already been consul and was rather well-known. However...to get into the position he was in, he also had huge debts and a huge number of political rivals. He needed a miracle to make it worthwhile, honestly - Though there's no way in hell he could have expected what came. First thing's first: Possibly the greatest reason Caesar invaded Gaul was for money. He didn't so much care about the people living there as he cared about settling his own debts while making himself even more of a superstar. If you're interested in more on Roman politics, I've made several posts on the matter :) This one covers the basics on how a Roman senator would rise in prominence, this one covers the Senate and their styles of gaining power, this one covers the concept of auctoritas, and this one covers more on politics in the Roman Senate. Here's the relevant link on my profile.
Either way - Caesar needed to achieve victories, not only in Gaul, but over the Roman populace. To do that, he published his famous "correspondence" - what we know today as his Gallic Wars, works which were stunning successes at the time - here's a relevant quote from Cicero regarding them:
Possibly the best thing about the Commentaries from the modern perspective, strange as this might sound, is the fact that Caesar was forced to be relatively accurate. The works were, of course, slanted to shine him in the best possible light - however, outright fabrications would have been instantly latched onto by the incredibly toxic and competitive political climate in Rome. One misstep there, and his name would have been dragged through the mud - which helps us to at least define the narrative in context. And that narrative, while brutal at times, never discusses the systematic murder of a people based on culture, nationality, or race. Rape? Yes, it happened on a wide scale when towns were taken (and sacked). Murder? Same thing - and adding in slaughtering as many as you could from the routing army. Slavery? Sure thing - that was a good chunk of change for everyone right there (He probably exaggerated, but Caesar claimed to have "Killed a million and enslaved a million more"). However, none of that was levied against the Gauls based on their race.
Hope that answers your question :) If you have any more, please, feel free to ask them! :D