Talk:Gallic Wars

Divico

I think that Divico should be included in "Commanders and leaders" because he was very important person in Battle of Bibracte and leader of one of main tribe took part in this war Helvetii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfaxx (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Gallic Wars

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gallic Wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hans Delbrück":

• From Battle of Alesia: Delbrück 1990, p. 504
• From Hannibal's crossing of the Alps: Delbrück 1990, p. 303

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Source wanted...

...for the claim that C. became notably wealthy after defeating the Gauls. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Found, in Gilliver. Through selling of slaves, and plundering cities. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gallic Wars/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Levivich (talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

@CaptainEek: Everyone in the English-speaking world with an internet connection who hears about the Gallic Wars for the first time and wants to know more will Google it and reach this article: you are writing the world's introduction to the Gallic Wars. It is a daunting task to try and explain something this complicated, with a lot of unfamiliar and difficult-to-pronounce vocabulary words like "Vercingetorix," to a reader who will likely know little or nothing about the subject matter beyond that there was a guy named Caesar who led the Romans and has a salad named after him. You've done a really excellent job of it and this is obviously going to pass GA (and I'll post a template and go through each of the criteria to confirm, of course), but I'd like to treat this more like a pre-FAC peer review and focus my comments on how I think the article can be improved (not just whether it passes GA criteria), particularly in the scope (completeness), presentation (neutrality) and prose (readability).

I want to focus first on the big picture: the theme or thesis of the article as a whole, and ask a bunch of semi-rhetorical questions. I think these questions should be answered clearly and succinctly in the lead (most of them already are), and that the answers should guide further copyediting to the body. I know what I think the answers to the questions are, but only you know what the sources actually say about it, so only you can really answer them. I don't intend for you to go through and answer each one of these questions (unless you want to), they're more like things to think about in question form:

• Who is fighting in the Gallic Wars?
  • Is it a war between two peoples: the Roman people and the Gallic people? Between two governments: the Senate in Rome, and the Gallic government in... where? Between two generals: Caesar and ... Vercingetorix? Caesar and a bunch of generals on the other side? All of the above? Are there even two sides, or more than two sides?
  • What is "Gaul"? Is it like Rome? (A place? A nation state? A people/culture?) If it's different, how is it different, and do the differences matter? What is the relationship between a "Gaul", a "Celtic", "Briton", tribal confederations like Helvetii, individual tribes like Nervii...
  • If it's the "Gallic Wars", why are Germani like the Suebi involved? What is a "Germani", is it like a Gaul, or like a Roman? Same line of questioning for Iberians and anyone else in the area who was involved (anything relevant happening in North Africa during this war?)
• What are they fighting for?
  • Is this about a general globetrotting with his army so he never has to pay for his own drink in a Roman bar?
  • Was this just an opportunistic land grab? Who gets to own the land that is conquered after it's conquered?
  • At the start of the war, some parts of Gaul were already under Roman control, from prior wars. Is this war the final chapter in a multi-century conflict, or is it separate from the earlier conflicts?
  • What were the Gauls fighting for? Is this a war of defense for them? Are they resisting invading foreign occupiers? Or are they the aggressors? Is it the same answer for all Gauls, or different tribe to tribe? What are the Suebi fighting for, and everyone else for that matter?
  • When Caesar wants to flex, why does he go north to Britain and not somewhere else? Of what significance was Britain to Romans before Caesar conquered them?
  • The article very briefly mentions that after the Gallic Wars ended, there was the civil war, but what about the view that the purpose of the Gallic Wars was to raise an army to take back across the Rubicon to start the civil war--I feel like that's in the body but not in the lead?
• Why does the Gallic War matter? Why do people study it? Is it the most important war in Roman history? The least important? Where does it rank? What influence did it have (outside of literature and culture) (if any)? Besides being the precursor to the civil war, how did it influence the Roman civilization? What about other civilizations?

That was more than I thought it would be when I started typing :-) So, the lead answers most of these but not 100% clearly for me. And the answers would guide specific changes: for example, the introduction of the names of places, people, and peoples. If it's a war between generals, then the names and background of those generals would be important (the article has a section on Caesar but not on any other general). On the other hand, if it's a war between peoples, then the names of those peoples and their background might be important, but their individual generals' names might not be as important.

So one of the ways I think the prose could be improved is to revise it, particularly in the lead, with an eye to being very judicious about the unfamiliar terms (vocabulary words) that are introduced. E.g., in the first paragraph, we have: Gallic, proconsul, Alesia, Vercingetorix, Germanic, and Rhine. I think only "Gallic" is so important that it should be in the first paragraph; mayube "Vercingetorix", maybe "Germanic" and "proconsul", but it's the answers to the questions above that would guide this choice. (And so on for the rest of the article.)

Miscellany that can be addressed later but I'm putting here so it's not forgotten:

• It should be shorter if it can be. It's right at the max recommended 10k words/50k bytes readable prose but IMO the more difficult or dense the subject matter, the shorter the article should be, because the reader has to work extra hard to understand the material. So 50k is fine for an article about a TV show but maybe not for an article about a major ancient war. I think we should (later) look at the level of detail and what might be pushed down into sub-articles to shorten this article... those decisions should be made with the answers to the above questions in mind, though.
• I'd like to try and see if I can find better maps (or maybe create one?)
• We should consider a timeline in a little box somewhere. The table of contents provides a handy timeline, but only for the desktop reader. Mobile readers won't see lvl3 headers until they scroll past them and thus don't have a "one-pager" timeline to orient themselves temporally.

OK, I hope this brain dump makes some kind of sense to you and I haven't massively wasted your time by making you read this. Looking forward to your thoughts. Levivich 22:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, Great points, I am working on them. I have tweaked the lead, am expanding the impact of the war, and will contemplate issues of length. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Roman politics

Some thoughts on scope in terms of the coverage of the relationship between the Gallic Wars and Roman politics. The usual caveats that the questions are mostly rhetorical and I'm raising issues based on my own general knowledge and not on my review of the sources, and of course the sources trump my opinions when it comes to what we should say in the article and how. Please consider that a standing caveat for the remainder of this review so I'll just post the bullet points next time. :-)

• Gaius Marius
  • I think the article should mention he was Caesar's uncle (and maybe it's worth mentioning Caesar's father died when Caesar was 16?), and explain in what way (if any) Marius's influence on Caesar in turn influenced the Gallic Wars.
  • The professional Roman army that the article mentions was the result of Marius's Marian Reforms, right? Caesar grew up in the post-Marian reforms age, and served his whole life in the post-Marian army (as well as commanding post-Marian armies). To what extent did Caesar's understanding of how professional armies work (and what it takes to raise and lead them) contribute to his success in the Gallic Wars?
  • Were the Gallic Wars part of the reason the Marian Reforms "stuck" as the basic organization of the Roman military until the fall of Rome?

An interesting point, though I can't say it was mentioned in the sources I have. If you have a suggestion as to where I might find it though, that would help. -Eek

• Should the article mention that in addition to politician and general, Caesar was also a priest, having been Flamen Dialis and Pontifex maximus? I know those are more political offices than religious ones, but do the sources draw any connection between his priesthood and his generalship?

Probably better explored at the Caesar article

• Do the sources talk about whether Caesar's experiences fighting with/against Celtic tribes in Hispania helped him divide and conquer Celtic tribes in Gaul?
• Should the article mention that Pompey was a great general and thus Caesar needed to prove that he was a better general?

Done. -Eek

• Wasn't there a connection between the number of provinces one governed, and the number of legions one could command? Aside from having a less-famous military reputation than Pompey (and Crassus?), Caesar also had less land. Should the article mention that the lex Vatinia gave Caesar some land and (more) legions, and that conquering Gaul allowed Caesar to compete with Crassus and Pompey in terms of money and manpower? The article says "like most of Caesar's casus belli it was just an excuse to gain glory", but I think it's more concrete or practical than the esoteric concept of "glory": it's about money and soldiers, right, wealth and power?

Probably? But I don't see any sources on the Lex Vatinia mention that fact. Though doesn't mean they aren't out there...

• Also, should we mention that the five-year governership was unique because it usually was one year. (And thus Caesar could go off on a multi-year campaign without worrying about losing the office.)

Great point, done. -Eek

• I think the article should mention the turbulence in Rome during the Gallic Wars, i.e. what Pompey was dealing with (that Caesar wasn't dealing with because he was campaigning). Pompey and Crassus were probably hoping the Gallic Wars would kill Caesar, right? But contra to those expectations, the Wars made Caesar's position stronger, while Rome's internal problems meanwhile made Popmey's position weaker. (And Crassus's campaign in the east in fact resulted in Crassus's death.)

My knowledge of Roman history is actually not incredible, could you perhaps suggest what articles/subjects it would be best to link to/research? -Eek

• I think the Lucca Conference should be expanded.
  • "Non-military business for Caesar during the year included the Lucca Conference in April..." makes it sound like he's an honorary guest at some annual festival or something. I think we should explain that it was a meeting to talk about the crisis then facing Rome, and it was a way for the Triumverate (well, Pompey and Crassus) to try and get a handle on Caesar's successes and the problems at home.

I'll admit to not knowing what crisis was facing Rome at the time. -Eek

• • Is it fair to say that the Lucca Conference occurred, in part, because of the Gallic Wars (or what had happened up to that point)? And that what happened in the Gallic Wars after Lucca happened, at least in part, because of Luca? Another 5 years means enough time for Caeasar to campaign again. "In exchange, Pompey and Crassus would share the consulship for 55 BC." Sounds like a pretty good deal for Caesar... who in their right mind would want to be in charge of Rome in 55 BC?
  • Was Lucca the first time Caesar leveraged the Gallic Wars to his political benefit at home?
  • "A need for prestige more than tactical concerns likely determined Caesar's campaigns in 55 BC, due to Pompey and Crassus' consulship" makes it sound like he is responding to events, rather than causing them. Same, by the way, with the line "would come to be the Roman commander and agonist of the war." I would say he didn't "come to be" the agonist of the war, he started the war. More like Gaul came to be the antagonist of Caesar's rise to power, no?

Removed the "come to be" language, but re: prestige, historian Gilliver paints it that way. She argues that it was a militarily/tactically foolish move for Caesar and that he only did it because the risk of Pompey and Crassus outshining him and sidelining him. -Eek

• • I have it in my head that in the Iberian campaigns, Caesar gained the confidence and loyalty of soldiers, but he needed civilian support to rule Rome. The Gallic Wars (and the Commentarii) were how Caesar leveraged his military support to gain civilian support. In some way, the whole purpose of the Wars, from Caesar's POV, was to generate propaganda. Thus, post-Lucca was "Phase 2" of "Caesar's plan". Is this analysis in the sources?

Well I wish there was much discussion at all about Lucca, but what I've got says surprisingly little. I had to scrounge to find a description of it that wasn't written 2,000 years ago. Plutarch goes into it, but I wouldn't put much stock in his analysis of the situation. If you could help me find a modern scholarly text that goes into detail on it, that'd be incredible. -Eek

• Caesar also governed the provinces of Gaul (and Iberia?) while conquering. The article mentions the details of the things he did as governor, but I'm not sure if the reader will "get it"--that is, understand the significance of Caesar simultaneously conquering and governing, or how that differs (or is similar to) what other Roman generals did when they went on foreign adventures. It's the "pillage or occupy?" question, and Caesar chose occupy. The details are there but I'm not sure if the reader will get the overall import of Caesar's actions.

What do you suggest the import was? How do you think I could incorporate that better? -Eek

• A question I'm left with: When Caesar embarked on the Gallic Wars, did he intend to go to Britain--was he securing Gaul to be a launching pad for Britain--or was going to Britain a choice he made later, like a convenient opportunity, maybe post Lucca? Levivich 04:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I suspect convenient opportunity, but none of my sources really tackle that directly. I could make an inference perhaps? Pre-gallic wars, Britain was still this foggy land that was still partly legendary and some didn't even think existed. I somewhat doubt that Ceasar thought "yes, I will conquer all of the Gauls just to get to the far-away land I have no intelligence about". But can't say I have anything direct.

• Levivich Got some questions interspersed above CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @CaptainEek:, for the Lucca Conference (which, back then, I guess was spelled Luca" [Latin?] instead of the modern "Lucca" [which is Italian?], and is also sometimes known as the "conference of Luca" or "conference of Lucca", maybe:
    • "The Luca Conference" ​("...the close connection between Roman politics and the Gallic campaigns..."), which is now old (1970)
    • But also,:"The Conference of Luca: Did it Happen?" (2017), so there are a range of views :-)

  For the Marian Reforms, maybe:

  • Romans at War which looks like a college textbook, see pp. 187 (linked) onwards.
  • On the Wings of Eagles (I linked to p. 37 which mentions it, but it's probably discussed elsewhere, I don't have access to the full book).

  Rome historically had this big shift from elitism to populism that occurred over like five hundred years, of which the Marian Reforms were a large part towards the end. Crassus was Rome's richest man at the time and Pompey was its most-famous general, they were populares but not exactly men "of the people". Neither was Caesar, but at least Caesar was (comparatively) poor and ordinary, maybe more of a man "of the people', or that's how he wanted it to seem? I think the import of Caesar occupying Gaul and not just pillaging it is that he was leveraging these populist reforms to create a new power center outside of Rome, to challenge the old power center in Rome. Joining the army was a path to citizenship, so when he's raising armies and conquering Gaul, he is creating new citizens... he expands Rome not just geographically but demographically... it's not just new land, but also new people. I think when he crossed the Rubicon, there were very few people crossing with him who were from Rome... these were new citizen-warriors from the north (right?). So while everyone else is fighting over the pie, he's making the pie bigger... in fact, the new piece is so big and strong it can conquer the original pie. So is the Gallic Wars a bloody adventure for glory, or a realpolitik attempt to expand the electorate by enfranchising previously-disenfranchised people on the outskirts of the empire? A similar thing happened in the US prior to the civil war: people wanted new states, which meant new voters (true, unlike Americans, Romans "voted" with a sword rather than a ballot, but still...). The difference is that in the US example, the people who were conquered did not get to vote (they were moved to reservations), and people from the east moved west to take the land that the people in the west previously owned. In the Gallic Wars, I don't think there was this migration north from Rome; rather, the conquered people (who survived, or who collaborated) got to basically become Romans (right?).

  Now, that's my OR, I'm not suggesting that we include a comparison between the Gallic Wars and the US's North American conquests. But TLDR: I think the issue for the reader of this article is: were the Gallic Wars about killing all the Gauls? Getting rid of all the Gauls so Romans could inhabit their land? Subjugating the Gauls as an occupied peoples (colonizing them)? Or, was it about making new Romans that would follow Caesar (assimilating the Gauls)? In other words, was the purpose of the war about massacre, territory, colonization, assimilation, or some combination/something else?

  Let me know if you want me to keep going with new comments or pause for now to catch up on what's here? I want to neither overwhelm you nor slow you down :-) Levivich 16:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, keep your comments coming :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm working on expanding Lucca Conference with those sources and a few more I found, then hopefully I'll be in a better place to provide a conclusion about it here. There are 5 competing accounts historically and some modern disagreement too! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  Do they agree about how to spell it? :-) I love the line in Lucca Conference, "As part of the bargain, Cicero was to be obliged to end his criticisms and become a loyal spokesman for the alliance." It reminds me of Wikipedia, where three editors might also get together and not only resolve the disputes between them, but also come to consensus that a fourth editor should end his criticisms and become a loyal spokesman for the three. :-D OK, here's some more... Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, lmao that is a very prescient observation. Oh, and the sources all call it the Luca (just one C) conference, so I'm going to move the page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• The "on the wings of eagles" source was a great find! My library had full access to it, and it is truly a great source. I have expanded the military section a good deal, and now issues with baggage trains make much more sense. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Awesome! I'm not sure if it'll be useful as a source for this article, but you may be interested in reading The Face of Roman Battle (available on JSTOR via Wikilibrary) by Philip Sabin. It was recommended to me as an "the best article" that explains the details of how Roman infantry battles actually unfolded on the ground, and what it was like to be a Roman soldier in actual combat. It's probably now out date, but still, I thought it was a very interesting read. Levivich 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Background

I'm semi-skipping a detailed review of this section for now in light of the general comments on Roman politics above and your work on that. But I'll drop some things here:

• "Around 62 BC, ... in 63 BC ..." Is this in reverse chronological order? The Aedui were defeated in 63 BC, and the next year 62 BC, is when they were attacked? Levivich 15:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that was a typo, fixed CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's probably worth explaining that the Arverni and Sequani were a Gallic tribe, conspiring with the Germanic Suebi, to attack a fellow Gallic tribe, the Aedui. Assuming I have that straight; these names are tough to keep straight. Levivich 15:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Beginning of the war — campaign against the Helvetii

• I think the map in "Battle of Bibracte" should be moved up to this section, so the reader can more easily refer to it when the article talks about (for the first time in detail) the Helvetii, Swiss plateau, Rhine, Rhone, Transalpine Gaul, etc. Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• "They intended to travel across Gaul to the west coast, a route that would have taken them through ... the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul", but according to the aforementioned map, Transalpine Gaul is to the south, not between Helvetii and the west coast. I assume this has to do with the mountains/rivers hemming the Helvetii in, but perhaps a couple words to clarify ("...would have taken them around the Swiss alps through..." or whatever). Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Multi-year overview of the Gallic Wars. The general routes taken by Caesar's army are indicated by the arrows.

• It's unclear what Orgetorix's plot and suicide have to do with the Gallic Wars other than that they happened around the same time. Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is a bit of an aside but I don't think the reader will know who or what "the consuls" are, unless they read the previous section, but we can't assume they did (a mobile reader who expanded the "Course" lvl2 will not even have seen the previous section, and so won't know that "consul" is described above). So I would link "consul" here again but I think that's against the MOS to do so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Anyway, perhaps a few words about why the prior consuls wanted to attack but didn't? Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He marched north to the Saône river..." North from Transalpine Gaul, or northwest from Cisalpin Gaul (which is what the map appears to show)? Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

North from Transalpine Gaul. The campaign map from 58 BC shows it a bit better, but unfortunately leaves out the detail of where his reinforcements came from, which makes the northerly trek more apparent. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• "refused to engage in combat" ... refused suggests someone is trying to get him to engage in combat and he's saying no. Who is that someone? Or did he just choose not to immediately attack until conditions were better (and is it even worth mentioning if that's the case)? Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Changed to choose, good point. I think its still relevant though, as it explains in part why Caesar's supplies ran thin. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Did the supplies run thin before or after his supply train failed to cross the Saone? Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Added "still" to "not crossed" to hopefully clarify. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe a few words to explain why the army was able to cross easily but the supply train was not... due to weather, due to the supply train having heavier equipment than the foot army (but were there any siege machines?), due to the army being better trained than the civilians in the supply train? Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Regrettably my sources say nothing on the matter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Helvetii used this moment to attack Caesar's rearguard." How did the Helvetii get behind the Romans? Levivich 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ceasar had to stop following the Helvetii and change course in order to resupply, which meant that the Helvetii could then maneuver to follow him. I've tweaked it a bit to hopefully clarify. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Rhine crossing that happens later is significant... does it matter that he used a pontoon bridge to cross the Saone, or was that just the normal way of crossing a river at the time? Levivich 05:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The pontoon across the Saone was pretty standard. The Rhine bridge was incredible because it was a considerably sturdy timber bridge constructed in just over a week. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Celts and Romans fought for the better part of the day ... which put the Gauls at a disadvantage ... The Helvetii started the battle ... the Boii and Tulingi allies..." It's unclear who "the Celts" and "the Gauls" are. Assuming both are referring to Helvetii+Boii+Tulingi? I would choose either "Celts" or "Gauls" to describe them as a group (there may be a reason to pick one or the other, but interchanging them is confusing). Also, I think a sentence or something needs to be added that says the Helvetii were joined by allies, and when/how/why this happened. Were the Helvetii's travelling with allied tribes for their migration? Were Boii and Tulingi part of the Helvitii confederation of tribes (are they Helvetii themselves)? Did the allies come after the Romans attacked the Helvetii's rear? In the course of the narrative of the article, Boii and Tulingi just sort of "appear out of nowhere". Levivich 15:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarified. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm confused about the Helvetii attacking Caesar's rearguard and Caesar setting up his legions on a hill. Were they already on the hill when they were attacked in the rear? Or did they flee up a hill after being attacked in the rear? Similar with the men in the legion's last line being ordered to turn around: was that because of the Helvetii attacking the rearguard? Or did the Helvettii attack the rearguard, but from the front? Levivich 15:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There appears to have been enough warning that Caesar was able to stage his troops, there wasn't an ambush. If you have a suggestion on how to clarify, let me know. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• "After the Battle of Alesia" ... Alesia was mentioned in the lead but I bet the reader will have forgotten it by the time they get down here. Maybe just describe the event in a different way, like "after Vercingetorix's revolt failed"? Levivich 15:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Campaign against the Suebi

• "Caesar then turned his attention to the Aedui..." Is that supposed to say "Suebi"? Levivich 15:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

lol yes CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• What do you think about reducing the length of this section by like 50% by moving some details to Battle of Vosges (58 BC)? I'm not sure which details exactly, but I'm thinking the detailed discussion of the run-up to war: like condensing the first 4 paragraphs into 1 paragraph. Or maybe the detail is WP:DUE, I'm not sure. Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Have done. That was actually the one section of the article I didn't write, which is one reason its much longer.

• "Following Caesar’s victory over the Helvetii, most of the Gallic tribes congratulated him and sought to meet in a general assembly." Following Caesar's defeat of a Gallic tribe, most of the other Gallic tribes congratulated him--wow! Somewhere we need to explain Gallic politics and that the Gallic tribes were divided, and Rome and Suebi (and probably other Germanic peoples) took advantage of those divisions. This may not be important if you decide to condense these opening paragraphs. Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Reworked, "most" was not an accurate descriptor,

• "With their pride on the line, the other legions followed the 10th's lead, determined not to be outdone. Consequently, Caesar arrived in Vesontio before Ariovistus." Just to be clear: Caesar inspired the other legions to march faster (but no one is fighting yet) and that's why he got to Vesontio first? Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just removed it, not important. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The truce was violated when Caesar learned Germanic horsemen were edging towards the knoll and throwing stones at his mounted escort." - It probably should be "Caesar learned the truce had been violated by Germanic horsemen edging..." or "The truce was violated when Germanic horsemen edged...". Or did Caesar do something to violate the truce, after learning about the Germanic horsemen? Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• triplex acies probably doesn't need to be mentioned, as by this time, it would have been a standard formation for Roman troops (right?). I would talk about triplex acies and Roman formations in the #Military section. Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Each of Caesar's five legates and his quaestor were given command of a legion." I would remove this sentence as unnecessary (does it matter that it was five legates and a quaestor, and not three legates and three quaestors, or whatever?), or move it to the sub-article about the battle, but if it's kept, link "legate". Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Just removed CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think it should be stated that Publius Crassus is the son of Marcus Crassus. (BTW, Publius's successes must have come up in discussion at Lucca, right?) Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned the relationship. Publius probably was mentioned at Luca, but its not like we have a transcript of their meeting :P CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "he returned home" ... did he return to like his house in Transalpine Gaul, or do we mean he returned to Roman territory? Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point, removed the word home. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "At this point it is possible he had already decided he would conquer all of Gaul." What was he doing (in his mind) up to this point, if not conquering all of Gaul? The theory is that he had initially intended only to stop the Helvetii migration and push back the Suebi, but go no further, and then after military success, decided to go further? This harkens back to part of our discussion above about Caesar's motivations. Levivich 16:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Aye, hard to know exactly what his motivations were, folks have argued over it for 2,000 years. Gilliver seems to think that the thought had already coalesced by this point. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

57 BC: Campaigns in the east

• "a continuing theme for Caesar, who was often faster than his own baggage train" kind of makes it sound like that slow excuse for a baggage train just couldn't keep up with the Great Caesar. Whereas, the rest of the article makes it out to be more of a strategic/tactical choice by Caesar to move fast and not wait for his own baggage train (or even some of the legions) to show up, an approach that had both advantages ("His armies' travel speed proved to be a crucial aspect of his ensuing victories") and disadvantages ("As the battle began, two legions had not even arrived"). So it's not that Caesar was innately faster than the baggage train, but that Caesar gambled by leaving the train behind, right? I think that clause "who was often faster than his own baggage train" could be better said in a way that emphasized the tactical choice of speed (assuming I'm understanding correctly). Levivich 01:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd add a word or two somewhere to explain that the Suessiones are one of the tribes of the Belgae confederation (and that Belgae was a confederation of tribes and not a single tribe). Levivich 01:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "crossed the river at speed" - "at speed" is a British colloquialism, I believe. I believe that because I had to look it up just now :-) Might be better to just say "quickly"? Levivich 01:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "panicking as they had against Ariovistus the year before" - the previous section about Ariovistus doesn't mention panicking, and probably should? Levivich 01:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Now removed, turns out the panic against Ariovistus the year before wasn't even in battle, and seems to have maybe just been Caesar bragging about how good of a leader is...a fish story by the sounds of it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "left wing... this left... right wing..." This confused me at first, as I thought "this left" referred to the "left wing". Right now I can't think of another word for "left" in the sense of "remain". Levivich 01:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As a bird editor, I'll have you know I'm a wing expert :P Done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "take care of tribes" - as in kill or care for? Levivich 01:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point. This is Ceasar, so it was definitely kill. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is the 53,000 slaves a credible or disputed number? Was that like half/more than half of the surviving Atuatuci population? Levivich 01:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Gilliver states it outright without any qualification, and I think its believable. If Caesar had 40-50k men, its not too hard to imagine him fighting forces of similar sizes and then enslaving the majority of the force. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

56 BC: Campaign against the Veneti

• I'd consider mentioning the sails/oars distinction in the first paragraph when discussing Atlantic/Mediterranean waters. Levivich 02:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Moved. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Flimsier" sounds like a value judgment and a bit informal. "Lighter"? Levivich 02:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Changed to "less sturdy", as Gilliver discusses things in terms of sturdiness. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Caesar wished to sail as soon as the weather permitted ... halted the campaign until the seas calmed." I'm a little confused, as I thought "weather permitted' meant the seas had calmed? Or was it like, they hadn't calmed enough? Levivich 02:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Caesar realized that a battle by sea would be necessary" Also a bit confusing: presumably, he had already realized a battle by sea would be necessary when he commissioned the fleet? Was he realizing now that the fleet he met at the mouth of the Loire wasn't seaworthy and thus a second fleet had to be raised? Or was the first fleet not yet raised when he halted the ground campaign? Levivich 02:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Re both of the above points, I've changed to "Caesar realized that the campaign could not be won on land and halted the campaign until the seas calmed enough for the Roman vessels to be most useful." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "and had learned from the guerilla tactics of the war" Had learned what? How to use them? How to defend against them? Or is it "had learned guerilla tactics from the war"? Levivich 02:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Right you are CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

55 BC: Crossing the Rhine and the English Channel

• "due to Pompey and Crassus' consulship" should say a little more about the significance of the consulship and how it led to Caesar's need for prestige, I think maybe something like, "due to Caesar having given up his consulship in Rome in exchange for another five-year governorship in Gaul as part of the Luca Conference agreement" (assuming that's the reason). Noting that Caesar gave up Rome for Gaul helps set up the explanations in the subsequent sentences at the beginning of this paragraph. Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit.

• "The Suebi had recently forced the Celtic Usipetes and Tencteri from their lands and had crossed the Rhine in search of a new home." I think "and had crossed" should be changed to ", who had crossed", assuming it was the Usipetes and Tencteri who crossed. Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Done

• This is my personal preference, but you introduced Gilliver so long ago in the article (several lvl2 sections above), that I would re-introduce her here, "Historian Kate Gilliver..." Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Done

• "it was just an excuse to gain glory" discussed above, but just to note, this should probably be edited to explain his reasons beyond "glory". I think a word like "popularity" or what's been used before, "prestige," is more accurate than "glory." "Popularity" and "prestige" (like "fame" and "reputation") are about what other people think of you, e.g. extrinsic or external, whereas "glory" (like "honor") are internal or intrinsic values. Caesar didn't do this to be a hero because he wanted to be a hero for the sake of being a hero; he did it because he wanted people to think of him as a hero (right?). Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Changed to "excuse to gain stature in the eyes of the Roman people"

• I just wanted to double check that the sources use the word "British" here and not "Britonic" (for some reason I thought British wasn't the word to use to describe ancient Britainites or whatever we call them). Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I've changed to Britons/Britonic as grammatically appropriate

• "Caesar's trip into Britain" maybe better to specify "Caesar's initial trip into Britain"? Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Done

• "The Romans' luck did not improve..." Unclear in what way the Romans were unlucky up to this point? That their cavalry had not made the crossing? If so, it's unclear this was due to bad luck and not strategic decision. If not, what was the bad luck? Overall, it seems like things are going pretty well for the romans so far? Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ceasar appears to have badly wanted his cavalry, but the weather (and perhaps a degree of incompetence re:roman sailing on the open sea) kept them away, I'm open to better ways to describe this

• "... and a Roman supply party was ambushed" I'm confused here about who was supplying them, and from where they were traveling, such that they were ambushed? In my mind, all the Romans are on shore with ships behind them, and the Britons are on land, such that any supplies would be coming from the south, across the water (and the Britons wouldn't be able to ambush them)? What am I missing here? Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, my b, that should say foraging party. Sometimes I paraphrase too much and the meaning gets a little scrambled...

• I think something should be said about how the people in Rome knew that Caesar had crossed the Channel, such that he was hailed as a hero upon his return. Might be a good time to introduce the Commentarii, even if it's just in a sentence saying that he was sending propaganda missives back to Rome. Levivich 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

put a little word in

• Anybody say anything about why the ships that weren't fit to fight the Venetians were fit to cross the Channel? Or were there upgrades made? I'm entirely speculating here, but do the sources talk about whether Caesar's experience with Atlantic combat against the Veneti gave him the knowledge/experience needed to later be the first to cross the Channel? Levivich 17:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Well they weren't incredibly fit to cross, given that his cavalry couldn't figure it out. That is an interesting angle, that his experience may have helped him cross, but I don't believe my sources tackle that particular wrinkle. Plus, I suspect Caesar would have bragged about it if so.

54 BC: Invading Britain, unrest in Gaul

• "A series of revolts there late in the year provided further evidence of Gallic instability" A bit of an understatement? Some might say a series of revolts are conclusive proof of instability, rather than further evidence. :-) Levivich 17:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Done

• "The British army had superior mobility due to its cavalry" - but the Romans had cavalry this time, too, why did Britain have superior mobility? Was British cavalry faster? Were the 2,000 Roman horses not enough horses? Or was it the chariots? (Which are slower than cavalry?) Levivich 17:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

My source does not elaborate. Verbatim it says "The mobility of the British infantry, cavalry and especially the chariots, caused the Romans problems". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I assume Caesar praised Quintus Cicero in order to impress Marcus Cicero. Just as I wondered what Publius-under-Caesar meant for Luca, I wonder what Quintus-under-Caesar meant for Cicero's cooperation with the Triumverate and later with Caesar. Saving Cicero's son must have helped with Cicero being a "loyal spokesman"? Levivich 17:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Added a little note about how Caesar wished to keep him as an ally.

53 BC: Suppressing unrest

• "seven legions ... 40,000–50,000 men ... 25 cohorts" - Throughout, the article gives numbers of legions, men, and cohorts, but I think the explanation of the relationship between those units (cohort = 480 men, 10 cohorts + supports = legion of 5k men) given in the Military section is going to be forgotten by readers once they get down to later parts of the article. It might be good to either use standard units (25 cohorts is two and a half legions?), or maybe add some explanatory parens, like "25 cohorts (about 12,000 men)". I understand the desire to avoid OR calculations and unit conversions, so of course it'd have to be done carefully, but I wonder if there is some explanatory text that could be added to help the reader along. I had to go look up how many men in a cohort before I understood what portion of Caesar's army Labienus had with him: whether it was half, or most, or a little bit, etc. Levivich 16:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I like the parenthetical number.

• Following up on that: "Labienus realized that his force (not even a legion strong) would be at a serious disadvantage" - but 25 cohorts = 2.5 legions? Or was "his force" not the aforementioned "25 cohorts and a good deal of cavalry"? Levivich 16:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thats a miscalculation on my part

• This is a bit of an aside, but does any source talk about: how is it that the Romans keep getting the Gauls to chase them up hills? I mean, presumably the Gauls, fighting in their own hilly territory, would be familiar with the concept of hills, and the dangers of chasing your enemy up high ground. I mean, I made the same mistake, too, when first playing Rome: Total War, but eventually, one learns... :-) Levivich 16:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hehe, the classic total war gaffe. None of my sources seem to discuss it, which I find a bit odd. I think it might have something to do with Gallic beliefs about how one proves themself in battle, and thus running up a hill is seen as a man proving oneself. But none of my authors tackle it directly.

• "The Germanic tribes had promised aid to the Treveri ... Caesar now sought to punish the Germanic tribes for daring to help the Gauls" - Which Germanic tribes? All of them? Also, did they just promise aid, or did they actually deliver on that promise? What type of aid? Supplies? Men? Levivich 16:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No idea, my sources go into very limited detail.

• "did little to stop rebellion" ... kind of makes it sound like the rebellion was a natural force like a hurricane. Did Caesar's actions "do little to stop it", or did Caesar's actions cause it, or make it worse (more widespread)? Also is "rebellion" really the right word? I mean, Caesar and the Romans would call it "rebellion", but that implies an internal uprising... like Romans rising up against Romans... given how freshly conquered this territory was, was it a "rebellion" or just "unfinished conquering"? Do you know what I mean? Rebellion implies, at least to me, that Romans have legal authority over Gaul: people rebel against their own governments or established governments; I'm not sure they rebel against recent occupiers as opposed to just "continuing to fight" them. Here's a question: just how many years of peace did Gaul have? I think 0 or maybe 1 (55 BC)? The fighting only stopped for the winters or when Caesar left for Britain? Levivich 16:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

reworked the whole sentence to "Caesar aimed to prevent a repeat of the previous disastrous winter, but given the brutality of Caesar's actions that year, an uprising could not be stopped by garrisons alone"

52 BC: Vercingetorix's revolt

• "The campaigns of 53 BC had been particularly harsh, and the Gauls feared for their prosperity." Before reading this, it wasn't clear to me that the 53 BC campaigns were particularly harsh (harsher than the previous campaigns). It might be better to move this point to the section on 53 BC and maybe expand a little bit about how those campaigns differed from previous (I assume more looting and burning?). Levivich 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've said a little bit more in the 53 section. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "But this changed in 53 BC, when Caesar had effectively declared Gaul a Roman province." I'm unclear about this, too. What was the legal status of Gaul following the earlier campaigns? I infer there wasn't any actual declaration, but what was it about 53 BC that made Caesar's actions in that year an effective declaration that Gaul was a Roman province, whereas his actions in previous years were not effectively such a declaration? Levivich 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified to the exact wording from the source "being treated as a Roman province". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Where was the Gallic holy land? It was spared destruction up to this point, I presume: what was it about the events of 53 BC that made the Gauls fear for it? Just the ferocity of the destruction, or was Caesar moving into territory he had previously avoided, or something else?

added "subject to Roman laws and religion" to hopefully explain this.

• "the charismatic Arvenian, Vercingetorix" Even though it's longer, I would change this to "the charismatic Vercingetorix, king [chieftan?] of the Arveni tribe", because I'm not sure readers will remember that there was a tribe called Arveni and that an Arvenian is a member of that tribe (as opposed to a type of druid, or something else). Also probably worth identifying Verc. as a leader and not just a member of the tribe. Levivich 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done

• "He rushed north" - I'm probably being pedantic so feel free to ignore this, but isn't it "northwest"? It's just that in my head (and on a map?), anyone heading north from Rome is going to Austria and then Germany, whereas Provence is west of Italy and Agedincum is northwest. If I were to step away from my own pedantry, I'd say that it doesn't matter which cardinal direction he headed... he headed from Rome to Gaul. Levivich 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

changed "to gaul"

• "Boii (allied to Rome)" - the last time we heard about the Boii (in this article), they were fighting against Rome at Bibracte. Might be worth mentioning at what point they switched sides. Levivich 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Added a note

• "artillery battered the walls" - IIRC the artillery was specifically ballista. In an article about a war, I think we should mention this specific weapon, because I think (again, going off memory) that it was an important weapon for this war. Ballista#Early Roman ballistae mentions its use at the first invasion of Britain and siege of Alesia, but Battle of Alesia doesn't mention ballista... not sure where the RSes are on the importance of ballista to the Gallic Wars, or whether there were other kinds of artillery in use as well. Levivich 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It was indeed the Ballista. Gilliver actually gives about two pages of discussion about the ballista and scorpion, but the article already felt pretty full. If you have a suggestion for where I should include a paragraph on such siege weapons, go ahead.

51 and 50 BC: Pacification of the last Gauls

• "two players" -> "Kings", "chiefs", "leaders", "influential leaders"? Levivich 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Caesar chose not to slaughter the defenders, and instead just cut off their hands as an example", oh, like we do at ANI. :-D Levivich 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Merciful we are at ANI :P CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• If all of the tribes surrendered and all of Gaul was conquered, then why would the campaigns have continued if not for the civil war? Where would the campaigns have continued if all of Gaul was subjugated? Are we talking about putting down uprisings within the conquered territory, or expanding the conquered territory? Levivich 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done meant expanding into Germanic territory CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The campaigns may well have continued, if not for the impending Roman civil war ... There may have been unrest in the region as late as 70 AD" - I'd ce this somehow for clarity... "may well have continued, if not for..." earlier in this paragraph makes me think that "may have been unrest" carries this implied "if not for", but I think those are just two different uses of the word "may". Maybe (heh, see what I did there?) the last sentence should be something like, "Some historians believe unrest in the region continued as late as 70 AD." Levivich 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• I like what you've added in terms of legacy/impact. Should you mention that the northern expansion of Roman territory that Caesar started ultimately continued as far as Hadrian's wall? In my head, what started with Caesar ended with Hadrian, but I don't know if the sources put it that way. Levivich 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a fair bit more explaining would be needed, as Ceasar didn't capture Britain, just extracted tribute, he left its true conquering for his successors, and that is quite the story in of itself. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Historiography

• "Only a handful of other contemporary works refer to the conflict but none as in-depth as Caesar's" - Is it accurate/worth mentioning that some (most/all?) contemporary works also relied on the Commentarii? I.e., Caesar is everyone's source? Or maybe another way to frame it: are there any accounts at all entirely independent of Caesar/the Commentarii? Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Contemporary authors" - Some? Most? All? Is it accurate/worth mentioning that there are only like two or three contemporary authors (as compared to hundred (thousands?) of historians)? Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd have a hard time quantifying that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Should the particular estimates, e.g. of Helvetii, Usipetes/Tenceri, etc., be moved from the Historiography section into footnotes in the sections where those events are described? I feel like these Helvetii numbers would have been more useful to me as a reader back when I was reading the section about the Helvetii campaign. If you do decide to move them to footnotes, I still think that the difference in estimates should be discussed in the Historiography section, but you could link to the same footnote again in this section for the specific numbers. Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added a short in-text note. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• "finds the claim of zero Roman losses possible, as their brutality was excessive" - I don't understand why excessive brutality reduces casualties. Also, I don't understand what was excessive about the Roman's brutality. For example, cutting off everyone's hands after the battle is excessive brutality, but how would doing things like that reduce casualties during the battle? If there was excessive brutality on the battlefield, I'm not sure the article explained it (as opposed to what we would today call war crimes against civilian populations, like cutting off everyone's hands or burning villages, which happened post-battle... but if those things were extraordinary for the times, I'm not sure the article conveys that in the main narrative). Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Ultimately, Henige sees the Commentarii as a very clever piece of propaganda..." - Just Henige? Or is this mainstream scholarly consensus? Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point, this is definitely the consensus. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• "he further reinforced the belief that he and the Romans were protected by the gods and destined to win against the godless barbarians of Gaul" - I think I asked this above but does Caesar having been the high priest come into play here (per RS)? Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't mentioned. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I know this is tough but is there any indication we can give about whether the Henige/Gilliver view (brutal Caesar), or the Raaflaub view (not-so-brutal-for-his-time Caesar), are either mainstream or significant minority opinions? Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Henige Gilliver view is the majority modern view, but the Raaflaub view was the view for most of history. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• So are there any quotes from the Commentarii that appear in the secondary sources? Just curious of there's anything we should quote in the article. (I can't think of anything like Veni, vidi, vici off the top of my head.) Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I've added the opening words. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

In literature and culture

• "traditionally used as a standard teaching text in modern Latin education" Yup, I think I mentioned somewhere that I had to read it in college. I still remember the part where he says that he built the wooden bridge across the Rhine because crossing on ships would be beneath the dignity of Caesar and the Roman people. :-) Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oh yeah--I had forgotten that Asterix was a Gaul! I misremembered him as a Viking. See, this is why we need "In popular culture" sections. Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• OK the serious comment tho: I'm of the opinion that if an editor selects the examples in an "In literature and culture" section, that is WP:OR. Instead, the examples should come from a source about the article subject that includes the example as an example of the subject's appearance in literature and culture. I recently did a section like this, where the examples came from the sources about the article subject (and not sources about the examples themselves). I'm not sure that my approach has consensus or anything, but my opinion is that the examples of Gallic Wars in literature and culture should come from sources about the Gallic Wars, meaning if Asterix (though I love him) is not mentioned in books about the Gallic Wars, then we shouldn't mention him either. But YMMV and I don't think this particular point is within the scope of any GA criteria anyway. Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have cut the section down further, as I agree that culture sections are generally just OR. My section was mostly just what survived after a cut down of the original. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Break

• So I think that's most everything. Unless you want to do it differently, I am going to wait until you've had a chance to finish making whatever edits you're going to make in response to my comments above. Then I'll go through what's changed and your responses to my comments, follow up on anything that needs following-up on, and then confirm we've hit all the criteria, at which point I'll be happy to pass this. Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• I did not mean to spend this much time today doing this, but I got sucked in :-D Reminds me of that recent Onion article. Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hehe CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• It was a very interesting and well-written article to read, thank you for writing it! (And re-writing parts of it to satisfy my pedantry.) Levivich 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Just noting here that I made some (what I think were) minor copyedits along the way; of course feel free to revert and/or partially block me from the article as needed. Levivich 19:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• The infobox lists a bunch of tribes and "others", but not all the tribes that are listed in the infobox are mentioned in the prose of the article, leaving me to wonder why some tribes are important enough to be listed in the infobox but not important enough to be mentioned in the prose. I wonder if we should synch the tribes in the infobox with those mentioned in the prose? Levivich 01:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a more bold step and simply listed just the broad tribe groupings, the name of every possible tribe is not particularly encyclopedic and is covered better elsewhere. Let me know if you think I should remove "and others..."CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Levivich, Just to keep you in the loop, I am still working away. It will be a fairly busy week for the eek, but I hope to have everything done soon. Thanks for your patience. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Take as long as you need! Levivich 06:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, At long last, I do believe I am done with your feedback. Thank you for your patience, I have been busy in real life with school, and admittedly got a bit distracted by other articles...ADHD will do that to you... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Great! This'll conclude my preliminary comments and I can now start on my first pass of substantive comments. Levivich 16:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• I went through all of your edits since this GA started and our discussions above, and everything looks good. All six criteria are met. Great work! I think all of the issues we raised in our back and forth have been addressed somewhere or other, but before closing this up, I want to ask you if there was anything unresolved or that we still should address? Levivich 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not that I can tell, I don't really think I had any outstanding matters. Although there were a few of your comments above I was unsure of, most of my replies were color commentary. Plus, given that I'll take this through A or FA review, I imagine most of those kinks will be worked out anyway :) Thank you so much for all your help, work, and patience. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich Oops forgot to ping you...still learning how to use the new beta discussion tools that are incorporating/replacing enterprisey's classic scripts. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Levivich 14:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Orig-year for ancient texts

I believe that the orig-year parameter is not necessary for ancient texts, which were not originally "published" as we understand it. It is useless to direct researchers to a millennia-old manuscript. wikinights _talk 04:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Julius Caesar's portrayal of his actions in the Gallic Wars have led historians to call him one of history's first "spin doctors"? Source: Both David Henige [1], and Kate Gilliver (offline, p. 7) verbatim call Caesar a "spin doctor" in regards to his rosy portrayal in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico
  • ALT1:... that Julius Caesar's actions in the Gallic Wars were so brutal his enemies wished to try him for war crimes? Source: From Gilliver, offline p. 46. (After describing slaughter of Celtic civilians in 55 BC) "Roman warfare was often brutal, but this was excessively so, and Caesar's enemies in Rome threatened to prosecute him for war crimes once his governorship and its accompanying immunity from prosecution came to an end"

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tuberculosis elimination

Improved to Good Article status by CaptainEek (talk). Self-nominated at 23:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC).

• Looks good to me: a newly promoted GA, scrupulously cited, neutral, no copyright issues, and (obviously!) long enough. The QPQ is in order. Both of the hooks are fine, although I quite prefer ALT1. One thing: per rule 3b, the sentence in the article about war crimes needs a citation directly at the end of the sentence. Once that's resolved, this should be good to go. Thanks for your impressive work on this article: it's particularly heartening to see sitting arbs making the time to write high-quality content. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Extraordinary Writ I have added a citation immediately after, good catch. Glad to be of assistance in writing, I quite enjoyed this article! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• – both hooks approved per the above, AGFing the offline sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Gallic genocide into Gallic Wars

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pretty much the article for the Gallic Wars, which is much better written and places the events in their proper context. Nothing this article covers that the Gallic Wars don't already touch on Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The articles cover different topics. This article is about Gallic Wars which itself is (arguably) not designated as genocide. The other article specifically covers systematic destruction and genocide of Gallic people by Roman war criminals. The right action to take is not merge them but to improve them. Madame Necker (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Madame Necker@Dunutubble Merged. Gallic genocide isn't independently notable. It had some sourcing problems. "Making sense of the senseless" by Chirot & Edwards doesn't even mention the Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar, Rome, or Romans. Madame Nekcer, you didn't provide a page for Kiernan 2007, so I had to go look it up and find the page number for you. I was lucky my library had an online copy of it. But my library does not have an online copy of Lash 2006, and you have not provided a page number. So all I have to go off of is one source. That is not enough to make the subject independently notable, especially considering that it gets barely one page in a 400+ page work. I have gone ahead and included the useful information out of Kiernan 2007 here under Historiography. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek You've merged the pages when there is a lack of substantial discussion for it. Along with your impatience to wait for enough time to have a definitive consensus formed, as apparent from your rashly action, I view your merger as a violation of the relevant Wikipedia policy, thus illegitimate. I also denounce your falsification of sources. Chirot & Edwards do describe the genocide, but you are attempting to spin it by stating they are not mentioning Gallic Wars. You are also ignoring dozens of reliable sources both in English and other languages about the genocide, available both online and offline. The righteous thing to do for you right now is to revert your merger and wait for an actual consensus to form. Madame Necker (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Madame Necker On what page do Chirot & Edwards mention it? Can you copy the relevant text here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek Pages 15-16. You are still maintaining your illegitimate merger despite the lack of a consensus. You must revert it now. Madame Necker (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Madame Necker My bad, I do see the mentions now in Chirot & Edwards. Not very substantive I must say, its unclear which actions they're referring to. It provides very little detail, only mentioning the Eburones in passing. At any rate, that seems better covered at Eburones#Genocide (53–51 BC), so I've gone ahead and added Chirot & Edward's paper there. Lastly, no, I don't need to revert. Dunutubble proposed, I seconded, and I'd be somewhat surprised if someone else chimed in here. You don't seem to have a policy based reason as to why your article should cover the topic in a standalone form when this article can cover it with more context, and also prevent a WP:CONTENTFORK. I'll ping @Levivich though, perhaps he has some thoughts on the matter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek I do have a policy based reasoning. WP:MERGECLOSE states that you should wait at least a week before closing a merger discussion. You waited only 4 hours. Your implementation of the merger is a violation of this clause. Madame Necker (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair, I've reverted the redirect for the time being. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - This Gallic genocide article has been on my watch list for a week or so and per WP:DEMOLISH I have left it alone to see how it develops, but I was never convinced it was a notable subject apart from the Gallic wars article. Neither is it the only such action taken by Romans on the period. The information on these things is better contextualised within the head articles (Gallic wars etc.), because other than a historical account of the action, what more can be said? I am also worried by the oppose argument above that says The other article specifically covers systematic destruction and genocide of Gallic people by Roman war criminals (the other article being the genocide article). Romans cannot be war criminals when war crimes were not defined in that day and age. Neither can their actions be divorced from the nature of the time, and the only reason we know this about Roman actors and not others is because Romans kept better records. An article that adds a gloss in wiki voice on such actions that suggests war crimes fails WP:NPOV. So again, this article is better placed into a historical context of the Gallic wars, and merge is appropriate. I agree that we should wait a week before requesting merge close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Arrrr, CaptainEek, I offer me congratulations on a fine International Talk Like a Pirate Day! I support merger because I don't think the sources support the notion of the "Gallic genocide" as being something separate from the Gallic Wars. The Wars were the genocide; or, at least, genocide was part of the Wars. That said, I think there are plenty of sources to expand the coverage of genocide in our Gallic Wars article, perhaps even as a separate section somewhere. Here are some sources:

• Ben Kiernan's Blood and Soil is already in the article
• Lash 2006 discusses Gallic genocide at some length, but there are probably better (scholarly) sources, such as:
• Roymans, Nico; Fernandez-Gotz, Manuel (2015-04-02). "Caesar in Gaul: New Perspectives on the Archaeology of Mass Violence". In Brindle, Tom; Allen, Martyn; Durham, Emma; Smith, Alex (eds.). TRAC 2014: Proceedings of the Twenty Fourth Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Reading 2014. Oxbow Books. ISBN 978-1-78570-005-7. (PDF) - The first three section headings of this chapter are: "Introduction", "Re-addressing the Roman conquest of Northern Gaul", and "Towards an archaeology of mass violence and genocide".
• Creighton, John (2021). "Caesar's Gallic Wars: Archaeology breaking free of the shackles of history?". Journal of Roman Archaeology. 34 (1): 382–389. doi:10.1017/S1047759421000131. ISSN 1047-7594. - on p. 4 discusses Nico Royman's work, which, in Creighton's words, "broadens out the focus from military installations to include the consideration of enslavement, genocide, and scorched earth policies"
• Bellemore, Jane (2012). "The Roman Concept of Massacre: Julius Caesar in Gaul". In Dwyer, Philip G.; Ryan, Lyndall (eds.). Theatres of Violence: Massacre, Mass Killing, and Atrocity Throughout History. Berghahn Books. pp. 38–49. ISBN 978-0-85745-299-3.
• "Gaul, the Celtic world, was thus, through violence and genocide, brought into the realm of Roman 'civilisation' ... The human and cultural loss which this genocide represented was recognised and denounced by, among others, the great historian Camille Jullian, who emphasised how Caesar's conquest of Gaul brought the autonomous development of Celtic civilisation to an abrupt end." - Canfora, Luciano (2007). Julius Caesar: The Life and Times of the People's Dictator. University of California Press. p. 121. ISBN 978-0-520-23502-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |anachronisticurl= ignored (help)
• Raaflaub, Kurt (2021-05-14). "Caesar and Genocide: Confronting the Dark Side of Caesar's Gallic Wars". New England Classical Journal. 48 (1): 54–80. doi:10.52284/necj/48.1/article/raaflaub. ISSN 2692-5869. (PDF)
• A conference paper, but Taylor, Tristan (2012). "Caesar's Gallic Genocide? A Case Study in Ancient Mass Violence". 2012 Classical Association Annual Conference Handbook: 123.
• I thought this was interesting: "In fact, Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term 'genocide,' specifically referred to the destruction of Carthage as an early example of this crime. In later times, Julius Caesar's victorious campaigns in Gaul were often achieved through the annihilation of entire Celtic tribes that had either opposed him or rebelled against Roman control. The famous Pax Romana was created on the ashes of countless communities." - Alvarez, Alex (2001-02-22). Governments, Citizens, and Genocide: A Comparative and Interdisciplinary Approach. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-10848-7.
  • Raphael Lemkin's unpublished manuscripts mention that he had "partially written up nine cases of genocide in Antiquity" and lists Gaul among them - Lemkin, Raphael (2012-07-23). Lemkin on Genocide. Lexington Books. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-7391-4526-5.
• Gaul is also mentioned (briefly) in ABC-CLIO's Encyclopedia of Genocide and Routledge's History of Genocide. Levivich (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Article is too short to really stand on its own, its also a very disputed concept.★Trekker (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a general tendency to mush facts and the various outcomes of War in articles or publications— depending on the story teller the outcome could simply be presented as victory versus loss or winners versus losers and so on.... War articles may or may not emphasize the War crimes, Genocide and Crimes against humanity committed in such events. The same way as the story of Holocaust is told independently from the wars associated to the terrible event (World War- and it is often be referenced together). Another example is also the Armenia genocide is also captured with independent article but the Turkish-Armenian war article sits separately. There are more examples that emphasize the cruciality of writing the story of Genocide and its outcomes independently whenever possible, weather the root cause is war or other situations. To help adding more stories that are specific to the genocide of Germanic tribes, the Usipetes and the Tencteri, I added a new "Reaction" section. I started with the reaction of the Senate in Rome- this significantly shows the perception of considering genocide as a "stepping stone" for political power, for instance. I plan to improve the genocide article’s Notability but I recommend editors to allow time for the article content to develop. Nominating articles for Merge while contents are still being added, could discourage editors since this sometimes amount to deletion of articles that consist and provide information on overlooked but crucial events such as acknowledging genocide Wikipedia:Merge_what?. Petra0922 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Caesar did not commit a genocide on the Gauls as a people, but on distinct tribes that revolted against him. Many Gauls lived within the Roman Republic at the time, and several tribes enjoyed considerable benefits from their alliance with Caesar, such as the Remi or the Aedui. I think there is better ground for creating articles on separate instances of genocide, such as that of the Eburones. T8612 (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  The certainty of your comment about a series of events that occurred 2000 years ago asks more information! We know the fact that Caesar’s documents are arguably the sole reference that we can find and widely cited. He himself wrote the process and numbers of causalities specifying the ethnic groups. Petra0922 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Declaring Himself vs. Being Declared

Hey, small thing, but I made an edit to the assertion in the lede that Caesar declared himself dictator. Technically, he didn't; the Senate voted for it and elected him into the office of dictator perpetuo. Now, the Senate was filled with his allies in this period, so honestly they may be interchangeably (someone with deeper knowledge than me would probably have more to say about that). As I said in my edit summary, the page for dictator perpetuo notes this and says he was elected to the office. In my mind, it's probably best to have those two things consistent; you don't want to link to the page just for it to contradict this one.

I suppose I'm mostly just curious on everybody's thoughts on this. Delukiel (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Delukiel I believe I was inspired to write that line by the final line in Gilliver's book (before the epilogue) on page 88. She writes "He had the means by 50 BC to wage successful civil war and make himself dictator." So I interpreted that as declare himself dictator, but I guess "make" is the more technically accurate term? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek That makes sense, yeah! I think either "made himself" or "being declared" works just fine, so I'd just use whichever you think is better. Frankly, I barely know what I'm doing on Wikipedia, so I'll leave the choice to you. Delukiel (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is David Henige so extensively cited in the article?

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, including a note under the main 'Casualties and losses' section. While the numbers are likely inaccurate, and the article should note that, the repetition of Henige's paper does not seem warranted or helpful. 137.103.149.109 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Henige is not actually cited that extensively. The article is mostly built off the work of Gilliver, Henige is being used only to present a section on the historicity of the Commentarii. His name is present a lot because we are attributing the claims to him, because they are opinions. Now, I think they're quality opinions, Henige is a solid historical writer. Just because his specialty is African studies doesn't mean he can't write about other areas of history. If you have other papers that you think we should include, which contest Henige's perspective on the historicity of the Commentarii, please link them here. But I'm not in favor of reducing the mentions of his name, because then we're saying it in WP:WIKIVOICE, which assumes a certain fundamental truthfulness. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this 100% Henige's expertise on this topic seems tangential at best, and may warrant a citation or two in the historicity section, and only after a consensus is reached. But beyond that, as you say, his is a minor publication, and is given far too much weight in this entry, and certainly doesn't warrant a need for him to be featured in the introduction.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@HoundofBaskersville If folks could find some other quality, recent sources that tackle the issue, I could use them to reduce the reliance on Henige. But I'm not sure any modern writer is disagreeing with Henige's main point, which is that the Comentarrii are heavily biased in Caesar's favor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Campaign map of 57 BC.

First of all I would like to apologize, it looks like this topic is talked out. However, this map, although very interesting and likely represents substantial effort, places the Battle of the Sabis in the current Maubeuge area, where Napoleon III placed it in his work. The current Wikipedia consensus locates it at Saulizor. Is this a concern for anyone? Droopyfeathers (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)