Caesar: Life of a Colossus

Caesar: Life of a Colossus

by Adrian Goldsworthy

NOOK Book(eBook)

$10.49 $18.00 Save 42% Current price is $10.49, Original price is $18. You Save 42%.
View All Available Formats & Editions

Available on Compatible NOOK Devices and the free NOOK Apps.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780300139198
Publisher: Yale University Press
Publication date: 10/01/2008
Sold by: Barnes & Noble
Format: NOOK Book
Sales rank: 326,117
File size: 3 MB

About the Author


Adrian Goldsworthy read history at Oxford and is the author of The Roman Army at War, The Punic Wars, and other books about the ancient world. He lives in Wales.

Read an Excerpt

CAESAR

LIFE OF A COLOSSUS
By ADRIAN GOLDSWORTHY

YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Copyright © 2006 Adrian Goldsworthy
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-300-12048-6


Chapter One

CAESAR'S WORLD

'For, when Rome was freed of the fear of Carthage, and her rival in empire was out of her way, the path of virtue was abandoned for that of corruption, not gradually, but in headlong course. The older discipline was discarded to give place to the new. The state passed from vigilance to slumber, from the pursuit of arms to the pursuit of pleasure, from activity to idleness.' - Velleius Paterculus, early first century AD.

'The Republic is nothing, merely a name without body or shape.' - Julius Caesar.

By the end of the second century BC the Roman Republic was the only great power left in the Mediterranean world. Carthage, the Phoenician colony whose trading empire had dominated the West for so long, had been razed to the ground by the legions in 146 BC. At almost the same time, Alexander the Great's homeland of Macedonia became a Roman province. The other major kingdoms that had emerged when Alexander's generals had torn apart his vast but short-lived empire had already been humbled and had dwindled to shadows of their former might. Many of the lands in and around the Mediterranean - the entire ItalianPeninsula, southern Gaul, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, Macedonia and part of Illyricum, Asia Minor, much of Spain and a corner of North Africa - were directly ruled by the Romans. Elsewhere Rome's power was acknowledged, however grudgingly, or at the very least feared. None of the kingdoms, tribes or states in contact with the Romans could match their power and there was no real prospect of their uniting in opposition. In 100 BC Rome was hugely strong and very rich and there was nothing to suggest that this would change. With hindsight, we know that Rome would in fact grow even stronger and richer, and within little more than a century would have conquered the bulk of an empire that would endure for five centuries.

Rome's rise from a purely Italian power to Mediterranean superpower had been rapid, shockingly so to the Greek-speaking world, which had in the past scarcely regarded this particular group of western barbarians. The struggle with Carthage had lasted over a century and involved massive losses, whereas the defeat of the Hellenistic powers had taken half the time and been achieved at trifling cost. A generation before Caesar's birth, the Greek historian Polybius had written a Universal History with the express purpose of explaining just how Rome's dominance had been achieved. He had himself witnessed the closing stages of the process, having fought against the Romans in the Third Macedonian War (172-167 BC), then gone to Rome as a hostage, living in the household of a Roman nobleman and accompanying him on campaign to witness the destruction of Carthage. Although he paid attention to the effectiveness of the Roman military system, Polybius believed that Rome's success rested far more on its political system. For him the Republic's constitution, which was carefully balanced to prevent any one individual or section of society from gaining overwhelming control, granted Rome freedom from the frequent revolution and civil strife that had plagued most Greek city-states. Internally stable, the Roman Republic was able to devote itself to waging war on a scale and with a relentlessness unmatched by any rival. It is doubtful that any other contemporary state could have survived the catastrophic losses and devastation inflicted by Hannibal, and still gone on to win the war.

Caesar was born into a Republic that was some four centuries old and had proved itself in Rome's steady rise. Rome itself would go on to even greater power, but the Republican system was nearing an end. In his own lifetime Caesar would see the Republic torn apart by civil wars - conflicts in which he himself was to play a leading role. Some Romans felt that the system had not outlived Caesar, many naming him as its principal assassin. None doubted that the Republic was no more than a memory by the time that Caesar's adopted son Augustus had made himself Rome's first emperor. For all its earlier, long-term success, the Roman Republic was nearing the end of its life by the close of the second century BC with some signs that not everything was functioning properly.

In 105 BC a group of migrating Germanic tribes called the Cimbri and Teutones had smashed an exceptionally large Roman army at Arausio (modern Orange in southern France). The casualties from this battle rivalled those of Cannae in 216 BC, when Hannibal had massacred almost 50,000 Roman and allied soldiers in a single day. It was the latest and worst of a string of defeats inflicted by these barbarians, who had been provoked into fighting by the first Roman commander to encounter them back in 113 BC. The Cimbri and Teutones were peoples on the move in search of new land, not a professional army engaged in an all-out war. In battle their warriors were terrifying in appearance and individually brave, but they lacked discipline. At a strategic level the tribes were not guided by rigid objectives. After Arausio they wandered off towards Spain, not returning to invade Italy for several years. This temporary relief did little to reduce the widespread panic at Rome, fuelled by folk memories of the sack of the city in 390 BC by large, fair complexioned and savage warriors - in that case Gauls rather than Germans - but the Romans retained a deep-seated fear of all northern barbarians. There was widespread criticism of the incompetent aristocratic generals who had presided over the recent disasters. Instead they insisted that the war against the tribes must now be entrusted to Caius Marius, who had just won a victory in Numidia, ending a war that had also initially been characterised by corruption and ineptitude in high places. Marius was married to Caesar's aunt and was the first of his family to enter politics, and had already achieved much by being elected as one of the two consuls for 107 BC. The consuls were the senior executive officers of the Republic, charged with the most important civil responsibilities or military commands for the twelve months during which they held office. Ten years were supposed to elapse before a man was permitted to hold a second consulship, but Marius was voted into the office for five consecutive years from 104 to 100 BC. This was both unprecedented and of dubious legality, but did have the desired result, as he defeated the Teutones in 102 BC and the Cimbri in the following year.

Marius' successive consulships violated a fundamental principle of Roman public life, but they could be interpreted as a necessary expedient to guide the State through a time of crisis. In the past the Republic had demonstrated a degree of flexibility, which had helped the Romans to deal with other emergencies. Far more disturbing was the recent tendency for political disputes to turn violent. In the autumn of 100 BC, a senator called Memmius, who had just been elected to the consulship for the following year, was beaten to death in the Forum by the henchmen of one of the unsuccessful candidates. This man, Caius Servilius Glaucia, along with his associate Lucius Appuleius Saturninus had employed threats and mob violence before to force through their legislation. They were widely believed to have arranged the murder of another of their rivals in the previous year. Memmius' lynching was blatant and prompted a swift backlash. Marius, who up until this point had been content to use Saturninus for his own purposes, now turned against him and responded to the Senate's call for him to save the Republic. Arming his supporters, he blockaded Saturninus and Glaucia's partisans on the Capitoline Hill, and soon forced them to surrender. Marius may have promised the radicals their lives, but the general mood was less inclined to lenience. Most of the captives were shut in the Senate House when a crowd mobbed the building. Some climbed onto the roof and started tearing off the tiles, hurling the heavy projectiles down into the interior until all the prisoners had been killed. To protect the Republic, normal law had been suspended and violence was crushed by greater violence. It was a far cry from the, admittedly idealised, picture of the perfectly balanced constitution presented by Polybius, although even he had hinted that Rome's internal stability might not always endure. To understand Caesar's story we must first look at the nature of the Roman Republic, both in theory and in the changing practice of the closing decades of the second century BC.

THE REPUBLIC

Tradition maintained that Rome had been founded in 753 BC. For the Romans this was Year One and subsequent events were formally dated as so many years from the 'foundation of the city' (ab urbe condita). The archaeological evidence for the origins of Rome is less clear-cut, since it is difficult to judge when the small communities dotted around the hills of what would become Rome merged into a single city. Few records were preserved from the earliest periods and there were many things that even the Romans did not know with certainty by the time they began to write histories at the beginning of the second century BC. The tales of the City's early days probably contain some measure of truth, but it is all but impossible to verify individuals and particular incidents. Clearly, Rome was first ruled by kings, although it is hard to know whether any of the seven individual monarchs recorded in tradition were actual figures. Near the end of the sixth century BC - the traditional date of 509 BC may well be accurate - internal upheaval resulted in the monarchy being replaced by a republic.

The political system of the Roman Republic evolved gradually over many years and was never rigidly fixed. Resembling more modern Britain than the United States of America, Rome did not have a written constitution, but a patchwork of legislation, precedent and tradition. The expression res publica, from which we have derived our word republic, literally means 'the public thing' and can perhaps best be translated as 'the State' or the 'body politic'. The vagueness ensured that it meant different things to different people. Caesar would later dismiss it as an empty phrase. The looseness of the system permitted considerable flexibility, which for centuries proved a source of strength. At the same time its very nature ensured that any new precedent or law, whether good or bad, could easily modify forever the way that things were done. At the heart of the system was the desire to prevent any one individual from gaining too much permanent power. Fear of a revival of monarchic rule was widespread and most deeply entrenched among the aristocracy, who monopolised high office. Therefore power within the Republic was vested in a number of different institutions, the most important of which were the magistrates, the Senate and the Popular Assemblies.

Magistrates had considerable power, the most senior formally holding imperium, the right to command troops and dispense justice, but this was essentially temporary and lasted only for the twelve months of office. It was also limited by the equal power of colleagues holding the same office. There were two consuls each year and six praetors holding the next most important magistracy. A man could not seek re-election to the same post until a ten-year interval had elapsed, nor could he stand in the first place until he had reached the age of thirty-nine for the praetorship and forty-two for the consulship. There was no division between political and military power and the magistrates performed military or civil tasks as necessary. The most important duties and military commands went to the consuls, the lesser to the praetors. Most senior magistrates were sent out to govern a province during their year of office. The Senate was able to extend a consul or praetor's imperium as a pro-magistrate - proconsul or propraetor respectively - on an annual basis. This was frequently necessary to provide the Republic with the number of provincial governors needed to control a large empire, but it did not alter the essentially temporary nature of power. An extension of more than two years was extremely rare. Therefore, while the offices themselves wielded great power, the individual consuls and other magistrates changed every year.

In contrast the Senate's importance was based less on its formal functions than its sheer permanence. It consisted of around 300 senators and met when summoned by a magistrate, usually a consul when one was present. Senators were not elected, but enrolled - and very occasionally expelled - in the Senate by the two censors, who every five years carried out a census of Roman citizens. It was expected that these would enrol anyone elected to a magistracy since the last census, although there was no legal obligation to do this. However, there were comparatively few offices to hold, and many senators, perhaps half, had never been elected to a magistracy. Senators had to belong to the equestrian order, the wealthiest property-holding class listed in the census. Their name, equites or 'knights', derived from their traditional role as cavalrymen in the Roman army. However, the vast majority of equestrians never sought to enter public life and the Senate tended to be drawn from an informal inner elite within the class. Wealthy, and given a prominent role in guiding the State, they were therefore men who had a strong vested interest in preserving the Republic. Debates were dominated by the ex-magistrates, for procedure dictated that the former consuls be asked their opinion first, followed by the former praetors and so on down to the most junior posts. Individuals who had served the Republic in a prominent position possessed huge influence or auctoritas (see p. 524) and the collective prestige of the Senate as a body was based to a large extent on the inclusion of such men. The Senate did not have the power to legislate, but the decrees resulting from its debates went to the Popular Assemblies for approval with a very strong recommendation. It also acted as an advisory council for the magistrates when these were in Rome, decided which provinces would be available for each year, and could grant imperium as a pro-magistrate. In addition, it was the Senate that received foreign embassies and despatched ambassadors, and also sent commissioners to oversee administrative arrangements in the provinces, giving it a critical role in shaping foreign affairs.

(Continues...)



Excerpted from CAESAR by ADRIAN GOLDSWORTHY Copyright © 2006 by Adrian Goldsworthy. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements     vii
Map list     viii
Introduction     1
The Rise to the Consulship, 100-59 BC
Caesar's World     10
Caesar's childhood     30
The First Dictator     48
The Young Caesar     61
Candidate     82
Conspiracy     109
Scandal     130
Consul     152
Proconsul, 58-50 BC
Gaul     184
Migrants and Mercenaries: The first campaigns, 58 BC     205
'The Bravest of the Gaulish Peoples': The Belgae, 57 BC     233
Politics and War: The Conference of Luca     253
'Over the Waters': The British and German Expeditions, 55-54 BC     269
Rebellion, Disaster and Vengeance     293
The Man and the Hour: Vercingetorix and the Great Revolt, 52 BC     315
'All Gaul is Conquered'     343
Civil War and Dictatorship, 49-44 BC
The Road to the Rubicon     358
Blitzkrieg: Italy and Spain, Winter-Autumn, 49 BC     380
Macedonia, November 49-August 48 BC     405
Cleopatra, Egypt and the East, Autumn 48-Summer 47 BC     432
Africa, September 47-June 46 BC     448
Dictator, 46-44 BC     468
The Ides ofMarch     490
Epilogue     512
Chronology     520
Glossary     524
Bibliography     529
Abbreviations     534
Notes     535
Index     565

Interviews

A conversation with Adrian Goldsworthy
 
Q:  What is new about your book?
A:  The overall approach is new. As far as possible I have tried to write this as if it were the biography of a twentieth-century statesman, looking in as much detail as possible at every aspect of his life. One of the biggest differences with Meier—and also Gelzer, who wrote the most important biography of Caesar before Meier—is that I have tried to cover each stage of his life in equal detail. Their focus was always on the politics. Yet Caesar spent a very large part of his life at war—he was on campaign for no less than thirteen of the last fifteen years of his life. We need to understand Caesar the soldier as much as Caesar the politician because the two were so closely intertwined.
 
 
Q:  What are the parallels between Ancient Rome and our own times?
A:  It would be wrong to claim exact parallels between Rome in the first century B.C. and the modern world, but there are undeniable lessons to be learnt from the turbulent history of these years. One of the most important is to show the fragility of political systems. Caesar lived in the last decades of the Roman Republic, a system which was already three centuries old at the time of his birth. But less than twenty years after his death, his adopted son Octavian had turned Rome into what was a monarchy in all but name. There is perhaps a lesson for modern democracies in the danger of allowing entrenched lobby groups, political parties, and other interests to stifle real debate. 
 
 
Q:  Where was Caesar headed at the time of his assassination?
A:  Caesar was about to set out on a series of campaigns against the Dathians and Parcians, in what is modern Iraq.
 

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

Caesar 4.5 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 36 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Caeser by Adrian Goldworthy is one of the best biographies I have ever read. This book exemplifies why people still write about Julius Caeser. Goldworthy gives an immense amount of detail and information while attempting to stay neutral to the man he is writing about. He also presents both sides of the arguement of who Caeser was and why allowing the reader to make and informed decision not forcing his view on the reader. This book is definitly worth reading for anyone who has an interest in Roman history or Caeser himself although I would not suggest this book to the casual reader. Overall definitly a good book.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This definitive biography on Caesar's life covers all of facets of the brilliant general's life -- childhood, personal and political relationships, political career, and a primary focus on his military record. If you enjoy reading a variety of Roman works and want to know accurate, documented, historical facts about Caesar, this book will be a rewarding read. The book helped me separate fact from fable on issues like Caesar's relationship with Cleopatra, Mark Antony, and his military exploits. The author reveals the great man's achievements and reveals the uglier side of his personality and actions. An excellent history book.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This was a very good biography on Caesar. I recommend it If you are into Romans and into the things that happened in the BC era. There was parts that were hard to understand and read but for the most part this book was worth the money and worth the time to read.
glauver More than 1 year ago
Goldsworthy is the successor to Michael Grant, who wrote extensively about the ancient world. He does not have anything new to say about Caesar, but he writes clearly and fairly and gives the background for the events of the period. I look forward to reading his new book about the fall of the Empire.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Ceasar was just a man with weakness, and desires of a normal man. But he was a a brillant general, stateman that every ruled the Roman World. No one has come close to matching his accomplishment.As in any great man there will who are those who dispise him out of jeously, or competitionso cesar life on the Ides of March 44 BC is murered.
questbird on LibraryThing 10 months ago
I enjoyed this biography of Caesar, especially his early life, about which I knew nothing. Mr Goldsworthy describes with clarity the turbulent politics and ambitious personalities of the time at the end of the Roman Republic. I had heard of people such as Cato, Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, Brutus, Scipio, Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra, but this book puts them into the context of Caesar's life without allowing the many details and side debates to detract from the main focus, Caesar himself. Descriptions of political motivations of the various players were very interesting. The Gallic wars took up quite a chunk of the book. I was less interested in these, partially because (as noted by Goldsworthy) virtually the only historical sources for this period are written by Caesar himself. I also found the epilogue somewhat watery and hedged (it is written by a historian after all). However overall it was a clearly written book which gives a very good insight into the man Caesar and his time.
Miro on LibraryThing 10 months ago
In his introduction Goldsworthy says that, "Unlike those studying more recent history, ancient historians often have to make the best of limited and possibly unreliable sources, as well as balancing apparently contradictory accounts." In my opinion he does this very successfully in a readable book that doesn't try to present academic disputes.The basic outlines are clear with one paragraph in the introduction opening with the sentence, "Ceasar was a great man", and another opening with the sentence, "Caesar was not a moral man....", the two sides of his character being amply illustrated throughout the 23 chapters. Goldsworthy gives cognisance to the fact that the 1st century B.C. Roman Republic were not moral times and that ancient history needs to be judged in its own context, for example Roman pride in "virtu" (which could be expressed by conquering weak neighbours) or the mass entertainment of gladiatorial combat. Ceasar was a famous philanderer of the aristocratic wives of Rome which caused him some obvious difficulties, and he could bribe his way through politics and ally himself with armed gangs as well as the best of them, finally breaking the Republic by crossing the Rubicon and imposing himself as dictator.Militarily, he was as consistently successful as he had been with the Roman wives, conquering Gaul and eventually reaching the pinnacle of power that he had always sought through the defeat Pompey, his only credible rival in wealth, political influence and armed might. He combined cunning with aggressiveness, succeeding in subduing Gaul in good measure by his clemency and willingness to grant Roman rights, and it is notable that his well designed legislation continued to proved its worth under the subsequent rule of Augustus.I found this a very rewarding and recommendable book (much better than Tom Holland's "Rubicon").
mgreenla on LibraryThing 10 months ago
A highly recommended biography of Caesar. Goldsworthy does an excellent job of fitting a life of Caesar into one book. He clearly spells out what is and isn't known about the subject, and provides a reasoned view.
billiecat on LibraryThing 10 months ago
Probably the most engaging biography I've read, on this or any other subject. Goldsworthy's colossus of a book is tightly focused on its subject, but still gives a better picture of the end of the Roman Republic than the much more pop-history "Rubicon." As one would expect from the author of "The Punic Wars," "Roman Warfare" and "The Complete Roman Army", Goldsworthy thoroughly explores and explicates Caesar the General; but he also gives a complete and balanced picture of Caesar the politician as well. By doing so, he shows how war and politics were two sides of the same coin in the Late Republic - indeed, war in Rome was simply politics by other means (Cicero's greatest weakness as a Roman politician was undoubtedly his lack of military skill).One of the greatest strengths of this book is how it manages to put Caesar into his time and place - nobody in 30 B.C. knew that Caesar would become the figure we think of him as now, and so there was nothing fore-ordained or inevitable about his rise and fall. Goldsworthy is also careful to highlight where sources are contradictory, unclear, or inadequate - something that lends a historian more authority in my eyes than bald assertions could ever do. By drawing attention to these uncertainties, Goldsworthy illuminates a clearer understanding of Caesar and his times for the reader.
dougwood57 on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Goldsworthy's Caesar is an extraordinarily well-written one-volume biography. Some who have sniffed that Goldsworthy's treatment is not comprehensive enough miss the point - this is supposed to be a one-volume biography of Caesar and the book is 519 pages as is without chasing after the disputes between Crassus and Pompey. The author shows remarkable discipline in not wandering off down the many enticing pathways offered by the late Roman Republic. Goldsworthy specifically cautioned at the beginning that he intends to stay focused on Caesar and Caesar alone and that is what he does. Writing a biography of Caesar presents the formidable challenge of humanizing the subject - much like writing about Napoleon or Robert E. Lee. They are the 'marble men' in Shelby Foote's phrasing. Goldsworthy succeeds admirably in this regard. He repeatedly cautions the reader not to regard the events of Caesar's life as inevitable. The reader gets the sense of Caesar as a man who strove to succeed above all else, but could have failed. His lively writing style paints an engaging portrait of Caesar (much more so than Anthony Everritt's 'Augustus', for example). Crisply described battle scenes give the reader a good sense of what happened and why, whether against the Gauls at Alesia or Pompey at Pharsalus. Contrary to some other reviewers, I found that Goldsworthy's background as a preeminent military historian serves him well. At Caesar's most successful he was above all a Roman general and spent most of the last 15 years of his life fighting wars first against Rome's enemies and later against other Romans. True, Caesar was nearly 40 before he embarked on the victories that made his place in history, but we remember him for those years as a military leader not for his role as praetor or pontifex maximus. A remarkable one-volume biography. I'd give it more than 5 stars if I could. Highest recommendation.
Elsieb on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
I'm still only about half way though this. It's more military focused than I thought (I tend to prefer the social history rather than the military/political) but I still enjoy it when I dip into it. The man could fit a battle, that's for sure.
Joycepa on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
I found this book incredibly dull. Well researched--no question that almost all of the known material on Caesar is summarized here--but does it have to be so boring? While reading it, I found myself constantly comparing it wih Colleen McCullough's 5 volume fictional work on Caesar; IMHO, her books are infinitely preferable to this one volume. Same material, better read.For someone who is supposedly a military historian, it is beyond my power to understand how Goldsworthy could make the Gallic Wars sound so dull. It appeared to me thathe was bored by them. He seemed to pick up interest in the Civil War. I found his summary decent.For me, a major problem was the style of writing--mostly simple, declarative sentences. Such monotony along with the appearance of a lack of real interest in his material made for heavy going.Another very subjective complaint I have about the book is a lack of a point of view. I'm surprised that in 2007 someone can still make the statement in print of strivign to be entirely objective. That's a vain hope! No one is. In doing so, his material loses life. There is a saying in opera, "strong opinions, strong production". I think it applies equally well to writing.Granted, any author of fiction has far, far more leeway than a historian. But McCullough brings her characters to life, which made it far easier for me to remember the material! Also, you can learn far, far more about Roman life, culture, institutions, etc from her glossaries which beat anything I have ever seen in novels.Any really good general history ought to inspire the reader to go to original sources. I can't imagine desiring to read Caesar's Commentaries after reading Goldsworthy. Yet they are utterly fascinating.The only reason why I didn't give this book the lowest rating is that it is useful to have the material all inone place. And it certainly helps to put one to sleep at night--a good cure for insomnia.
glensing on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
I was surprised to see a very negative, one-star review of this book. I thought it was both interesting and well-written. In fact, I had trouble putting it done, and I was sorry to finish it. If the subject matter appeals to you at all, I think you are pretty much bound to enjoy this book.
Meggo on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Detailed, well researched, and thought provoking. Not a good book to read in bed, as it's heavy and the hard cover can cause injury, it's still well worth the effort. A good addition to any Roman historian's collection, even though the aftermath is somewhat lightly glossed over.
josefuentes More than 1 year ago
I found this book most invigorating and insightful biography of a man that has been misunderstood throughout the ages.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This is an enthralling read. Goldsworthy succeeds in providing the history in great detail without becoming a bore. The multitude of characters becomes difficult to follow, but Goldsworthy gives helpful reminders along the way. If I have any complaint, it is that Goldsworthy is a Caesar apologist. He spends a lot of time trying to convince the reader that he is not a Caesar apologist, but very little ends up being Caesar's fault--he even at one point calls the senators' hatred of him "irrational." The author's bias does not ultimately detract from the quality of the work, though.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I literally only read the introduction (on my new nook that my sweet Aeyron got me for christmas! ^_^) and I'm already hooked. This book is going to be amazing!
CrazyLegs More than 1 year ago
Goldsworthy meticulously pieces together Caesaer's life starting with his ancestors, then working his way through Caesar's youth, climb thru Rome's politcal scene, his military conquests, and ill-fated dictatorship. His detailed research debunks some myths and answers many questions concerning the life of one of the world histories most important figures.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago