Talk:Commentarii de Bello Gallico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Commentarii de Bello Gallico article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

	Commentarii de Bello Gallico is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

From the article: Notable chapters describe Gaulish costume (VI, 13). Does anyone know what this should refer to? I don't think there is any reference to clothing in this chapter.

Didn't Hirtius write part of The Gallic Wars? That's what my edition of it says, at least. Kuralyov 00:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nods. Hiritus wrote Book VII. Also, it's Commentaria de Bello Gallica, not De Bello Gallico. There are a few other errors. Sorry, I've just spent the last year studying the work. Dastal 03:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it written as Commentarii de Bello Gallica, and it's in Wikisource as Commentarii de bello Gallico, which is also what Literary works of Julius Caesar lists it as. So, uh, I'm confused. I never was very good at Latin... --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

"Bello Gallica" doesn't make any sense, unless "Commentaria de Bello Gallica" means "Gaulish Commentary on War" ("Commentarii de Bello Gallica" is just nonsense :)). "Commentarii" or "Commentaria" or whatever word isn't really necessary either, it's usually just called "De Bello Gallico" (maybe to avoid the problem of what gender "commentary" is). Adam Bishop 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Accuracy 2 History of the text 3 Common Incorrect Translation 4 Title 5 Incorrect translation of title 6 Vorenus and Pullo 7 WikiProject class rating

[edit] Accuracy

How historically accurate is it?

Good question, because the Gauls left no written records to speak of. And the cliche is, of course, that history is written by the victors.

That said, "though its publication was doubtless timed to impress on the mind of the Roman people the great services rendered by Caesar to Rome, [it] stands the test of criticism as far as it is possible to apply it, and the accuracy of its narrative has never been seriously shaken", as one website puts it. Obviously it's biased towards the Roman perspective on things, but this bias can be filtered out. 82.92.119.11 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of it is inaccurate and indeed is contradited by other parts of the same work (eg Germans and agriculture, Gauls use of writing). This is probably becauase Ceasar, like many others, draws on the lost works of Poseidonis and then adds facts observed at first hand. In general its a mine of useful and generally accurate facts, which are often corroborated by archaeology. --Nantonos 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

don't believe the part about teh stags with no joints in their legs, and the Gauls used to saw a tree at the base while the creature leaned sleeping upon it, so the tree would collapse, along with the stag. I pretty sure that part was imagined1Nathraq 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the text

Can something be added about the history of the text. Has the original manuscript been lost? Do any ancient copies remain? Are modern editions derived from a single medieval source or many? Zeimusu | Talk page 14:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Common Incorrect Translation

I remember my history teacher translating "bello" as "beautiful" (no doubt with the French "belle" in mind), and I remember hearing that this is a common mistake made by people who don't know any Latin. Perhaps we should add something about that to the article, if we can find a source for it.

Not to step on your or your teacher's toes, but that's rubbish. — Mütze 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is. However, what I meant was that if this is a common mistake, we should mention that it is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.180.130 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Should this article not have an English title, e.g. "Commentaries on the Gallic War"? This is after all an encyclopedia, which is aimed at general readers, most of whom don't know Latin. I'd suggest this for any other Latin works that are listed by their Latin title as well. --Nicknack009 08:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Incorrect translation of title

I believe that a more accurate translation of the title would be "Commentaries on the Gallic War." Bello Gallico is singular, whereas Bellis Gallicis would be plural. This is only a minor detail, but as it says "literally," it would be best to actually give a literal translation. Fenoxielo 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vorenus and Pullo

I think that section is completely unrelated to the article, in any case it should be in the article about the HBO series. 168.234.230.217 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)