Introduction
The Civil War is identified as one of the political military conflicts that the Roman Republic had to encounter before the Roman Empire was established. In this case, it was also referred to as Caesar’s Civil War or the Great Roman Civil War. This war took place in a period of five years between 49-45 BC as Caesar went against Optimates and his supporters Pompey. The politico-military struggle was fought in Illyria, Italy, Egypt, Greece, Hispania and Africa. It was through these battles that Caesar established himself as a dictator of the Roman Empire. The following paper looks into the numerous commentaries Caesar made throughout the course of the war as he established his reign as the total ruler of the kingdom.
Analysis of the Text
The text “ The Civil War ” as written by Julius Caesar begins with a pretext of the events before the civil war. It is here that Caesar seeks to demonstrate a lack of commitment to the constitution and their unwillingness to negotiate. However, he seems not to state clearly the contents of his letter to the consul. It was made clear to the senate that numerous individuals were against Caesar and his rule in the republic. Instead, other possibilities would be explored by the senate as they entered a debate of the state of affairs in the republic. It seems that Pompey, the greatest opponent of Caesar had influenced one of the members of the consul, Scipio, who was also his father-in-law. Caesar indicates the numerous events that were taking place at the senate even though he was absent. He indicates numerous men affirming that the senate should not support Caesar and instead provide Pompey with the command.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is evident, that the members of the Senate were actively involved in a conspiracy against Caesar’s rule. They believed that his increased powers would lead to the significant reduction of their own. The members sought to strip Caesar’s powers by making him a private citizen and seeking the Roman people to vote him back to power. This strategy to overthrow his rule had been anticipated and he undertook significant measures to undermine the senate’s efforts. Despite the fact that the majority had been forced into voting it was the efforts of Caesar that were deemed as hostile to the state. It was no wonder that senate declared an emergency to indicate that significant measures by the magistrates should be undertaken to ensure the safety of the state. The various allies of Pompey would gather their legions while Caesar himself would prepare invading Italy. He had gathered numerous legions and was tactical in his approach to defeat his opponent.
Caesar leaves his province before meeting numerous of his military men at Ariminum where he would begin the preparations for a war. In the text however, it does not seem like he was undertaking significant action against the state as he crosses the Rubicon as a mere ploy to his true intentions. He is thus accused of falsehood as hw would say that he was conducting negotiations of the power accorded to him and Pompey over the state. His actions on the other hand were seen to seek destroying the opponent. As a result, it was evident that he was unwilling to continue negotiations as the senate and Pompey were not acting in accordance to the constitution. They were looking for every way they could revoke his leadership.
What can we learn from this text?
The continued division of power between Caesar, Pompey and the senate had caused major tension in the Roman Republic. It was unknown who was holding the majority of the power. However, through Caesar’s election as Dictator in perpetuity ensured that he would eliminate the term limit as leader of Roman Empire. Through the wars between 50 and 44 BC, Caesar was able to eliminate all of his enemies and opponents. He was able to gather the majority share of power in the area. Caesar understood that when he took up power, he would be able to effectively silence the individuals who had sought to strip him of his title and command. Caesar had lost all support of the senate as they believed he had accumulated too much power as he was more popular among the plebeians or commoners. They even elected him back to power despite the senate calling for a forceful election.
What is missing from this text?
There is significant text missing from “The Civil War” by Julius Caesar. The first is the letter from Caesar to the Roman Senate. The letter is an important factor to the entire text as it would indicate the critical demands that Caesar was making and as to why the senate were unwilling to conform with them. The second is the significant opinions of the opponents and the leaders who had rejected the rule of Caesar. In this case, the text provides the author’s opinion as to why members of the Roman Senate along with other prominent leaders of the Roman Republic had undertaken significant measures to strip him of his power. As a result, there was no little thorough analysis of Caesar’s rule over the people. As a result, only a neutral party could be able to effectively provide information on the same.
How is the information presented?
The information is presented in short and concise manner where details of the events are not provided. The text is quite mechanical as it does not seek to engage the audience to whom it addresses. It merely describes the various events that are occurring in the Roman Republic as numerous leaders seek to demean the power accorded to Caesar. This text does not incorporate much of literature devices to improve or enhance the story that is told. Instead it provides information flat out to the audience. The author would have provided the defeat of Pompey in a dramatic fashion but does so in a mundane tone. Furthermore, numerous events are taking place such that it may be difficult to point out the most important ones in the story. The final of the three books describes the where Caesar finally defeated Pompey. In the same way, it is hastily described and not much detail is set in the description.
Is there an authorial bias?
There is a clear authorial bias as Caesar is the sole provider of the information describing the events prior to the Civil war and the war itself. There was not much information that drawn from other authors and it is quite possible that Caesar had praised his actions when he could have done wrong. When describing that the members of the Roman senate were conspiring to oust him from power, it may have been partly true as the actions of Caesar seemed to demonstrate that he was seeking his own gain even though he had the support of the commoners.
Is this a valuable historical text? Why or why not?
Nevertheless, “ The Civil War ” by Julius Caesar is a valuable historical text as it provides the audience with a descriptive timeline between 50 and 44 BC when the Roman Civil War broke out. The text provides clear knowledge of the various activities that were affecting the state before the war broke out. As a result, it is easy to track the various occurrences that caused the five year long battle. This text also indicates how the Roman Empire was established as it was set up almost immediately after the end of the civil war.
