Caesar

Rating:
Summary: Dense but often illuminating
Review: Having some familiarity already with Roman history, I probably did not suffer as many may do reading this book if they do not know already the outlines of the era. Meier has the weaknesses of the Germanic intellect: he is longwinded, dense, and fuzzy at the edges, sometime rhapsodizing incoherently for pages about Some Big Concept he has contrived to explain Caesar's force and character. On the other hand, some of his ideas are compellng, especially his elaborate (and thematic) treatment of The Outsider as exemplified by Marius and Sulla, both of whom later served as models for Caesar.

But certain things are just fudged over, and left unclear. I only discovered by reading at the same time in Finley Hooper's "Roman Realities" (o.p.; get it out of the library) that Clodius, who was a wild man and sometime ally/enemy of Caesar, as well as Cicero and others, was the same Clodius who forced Caesar to divorce his wife Pompeia when Clodius allegedly tried to seduce her by dressing as a female slave and infiltrating Caesar's house. This is only symptomatic. The whole Catilinarian conspiracy is similarly befogged with intrigue, which of course it was at the time; but it is the duty of the historian to clarify such events.

All in all, I much prefer Michael Grant's book on Caesar, which is now o.p. too. However, it was shorter, more succinct, and not as rich in speculation as Meier's. This book is very thought-provoking at times, but don't rely on it to give you a coherent picture of this time. For Caesar's remarkable personality, though, it's probably the best.

Rating:
Summary: Informative, but very dull
Review: I have read many many history books in three different languages. This book never got me going. The author knows about her subject, but lacks a persuasive style of writing to keep you focus on the story. Too slow and too much unnessuary details.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating; not for a casual reading
Review: I read this book for summer reading and, while some parts are tedious if you are not an expert on politics and the late Roman Republic, I thouroughly enjoyed it. Meier does an excellent job in analyzing the character of Caesar and making him seem real. He also gives us an account of the late Roman Republic. While the book is primarily about Caesar it branches of into Roman politics and personalities which can occasionally be confusing but are nevertheless helpfull. This book is definitely not for the reader looking for some quick information on Caesar, it is a detailed, in-depth account of his life and times. I recommend that before you pick up this book you have some solid knowledge of Caesar and Rome or you will find yourself lost and unable to enjoy This excellent detailing of Caesar's life and times.

Rating:
Summary: A good book for enthusiasts, not as an entry biography
Review: I read this book to try to get an idea of who Caeser was, what his accomplishments were, and how the Roman Republic was transformed into an Empire. While this book did fulfill those goals, it was difficult to finish. To his credit, Meier drives home important points about his subject: the influence of Sulla, the importance of the achievement ethic, the paradox of the reactionary regime, so forth. But much of the book is not very understandable or interesting to a reader who is not avidly versed in Roman Republican history. In this sense, while I thought the book too long and drawn out, I would almost need to read it again to get most of the authors points! So, this is a good second book on Caesar, not the introduction I was hoping for. Finally, the end is quite abrupt, as only a few pages are dedicated to explaining the adoption of Augustus and Caesar's assasination, and Meier does not summarize well the lasting effect Caesar's legacy had on the Empire to be.

Rating:
Summary: This book is very interesting.
Review: I thought this book was a bit challenging for a jounior but it was great. I talkes about almost everything I wanted to know. I think this book is for you if you like Rome and history. If you read this book could you email me direct

Rating:
Summary: Don't Buy This Book
Review: I thought this was a very dull and boring book. In short don't waste your time or money. (...) There is a reason it was that cheap. This book should not be called CAESAR: A Biography. It should be called Rome and the Life of Caesar or Rome: At The Time of Caesar. I felt like the book was more about Rome than Caesar himself. ***Hardcover***

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating read
Review: Meier considers his book a "scholarly biography," but it's intended for a general audience -- in omitting footnotes and even a bibliography, for example, he already sets his book apart from the usual scholarly studies. Meier has clearly done a great deal of research and thinking on the subject over a long period of time, and he readily presents the conflicting theories behind many events in and facets of Caesar's life. If you're looking for a detailed military analysis of "Caesar the General" and his campaigns specifically, this isn't it. The book is part biography, part character analysis; while the latter is always dangerous when dealing with a titanic historical figure like Caesar, Meier never stoops to the kind of superficial psychoanalysis that too often plagues biographies dealing with great figures from antiquity (such as Alexander the Great). He bases his ideas on the ancient sources and the work of prominent scholars throughout history. Meier's many questions and hypotheses are always considered and balanced, and often more than intriguing -- particularly interesting to me is the way in which he contrasts Caesar as a mover of events and as one being moved along by them at various times in this turbulent period. I often got the impression that I was reading the work of a scholar who was happy to free himself from the usual academic restraints and was simply letting all of his ideas and questions out of the bag, and that's refreshing. Meier does a fine job of synthesizing the life and career of a complicated, restless man and the development of a very complex era into a readable and fascinating book -- he covers all the various aspects of Caesar's life in a balanced way (the brilliant general, the ambitious politician, the shrewd diplomat, the writer, etc.). It's a bit plodding in spots, and it would help the reader to know the basic outline of the period before delving into the book, but overall it's a great read. This is one of the best biographies of Caesar available. My only gripes are the total absence of ANY references and the sloppy editing of this edition: the former was Meier's choice, the latter the oversight of the publisher of this edition.

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating read
Review: Meier considers his book a "scholarly biography," but it's intended for a general audience -- in omitting footnotes and even a bibliography, for example, he already sets his book apart from the usual scholarly studies. Meier has clearly done a great deal of research and thinking on the subject over a long period of time, and he readily presents the conflicting theories behind many events in and facets of Caesar's life. If you're looking for a detailed military analysis of "Caesar the General" and his campaigns specifically, this isn't it. The book is part biography, part character analysis; while the latter is always dangerous when dealing with a titanic historical figure like Caesar, Meier never stoops to the kind of superficial psychoanalysis that too often plagues biographies dealing with great figures from antiquity (such as Alexander the Great). He bases his ideas on the ancient sources and the work of prominent scholars throughout history. Meier's many questions and hypotheses are always considered and balanced, and often more than intriguing -- particularly interesting to me is the way in which he contrasts Caesar as a mover of events and as one being moved along by them at various times in this turbulent period. I often got the impression that I was reading the work of a scholar who was happy to free himself from the usual academic restraints and was simply letting all of his ideas and questions out of the bag, and that's refreshing. Meier does a fine job of synthesizing the life and career of a complicated, restless man and the development of a very complex era into a readable and fascinating book -- he covers all the various aspects of Caesar's life in a balanced way (the brilliant general, the ambitious politician, the shrewd diplomat, the writer, etc.). It's a bit plodding in spots, and it would help the reader to know the basic outline of the period before delving into the book, but overall it's a great read. This is one of the best biographies of Caesar available. My only gripes are the total absence of ANY references and the sloppy editing of this edition: the former was Meier's choice, the latter the oversight of the publisher of this edition.

Rating:
Summary: Don't Buy This Book
Review: Meier writes a good book with, for the most part, many facts about JC and Rome and that era.

However he goes off on these tangents where he wants to prove some points. He declares that JC was an outsider and the republic was bound to fall. Yet he does not bring any proof of these 'facts' to this book. He uses the fact that the republic fell to show that what he said was true. I found this a useless part of the book and skimmed over many paragraphs of his rhetorical questions - Why would Caesar do this? Did he not know? yada yada yada.

I love facts. Give me names, dates, places, events. Leave your opinions in separate sections of the book not interwoven in the bio.

The main point Meier makes is that JC was an outsider to Rome's politics. While in fact he was the opposite. JC was as close to the inside as any of the others in the senatorial class. Meier fails to show a typical insider to contrast with this supposed outsider. Cato, Cicero, Pompey were no different than Caesar with respect to any question of a right to be in Rome or in the Senate. Meiere also fails to say exactly why he thinks JC is an outsider.

Another thing I did not like is the fabricated scenes Meier describes. Here is a bit where he talks of Caesar crossing the Rubicon (page 3 already) "There Caesar halted. He hesitated. Once again, beside the swiftly flowing river swollen by heavy rain, he reviewed the various arguments, then reiterated his decision. For a moment he once again took a detached look at the plan he had already embraced; what he had begun to set in train step by step now appeared to him as an awful vision. All the possible consequences of the enterprise presented themselves in their full horror. Contemplating them, he may have felt dizzy."

I think Meier is dizzy. Unless Caesar himself wrote this in some letter or as part of his Bellum Civile it should not be presented in this book. Meier's assumption of what Caesar might have thought is no better than what you or I or any student of the Roman era could think. My own opinion is that Caesar would have already thought of the consequences months earlier (and came to his decision to protect his honour) and that the Rubicon was only a symbol - there would be no ceremony for Caesar on the riverbank. He would have just ridden on by discounting the river's importance. It is nice to have some color in the book to try and bring the reader there but I think we get more of "what Meier would do if he was Caesar" than of what Caesar actually did or could have done.

Julius Caesar was a very complex person with many talents and abilities. Great general, brave leader, master politician, cruel and merciful, an honourable (honour seeking) man at the turning point of Rome where the republic becomes the empire. Meier gives us these pictures of the man, yet he then imposes his own opinions on the reader, which are at times too much to take. Read this book and make up your own mind.

The book is worth it for the 95% of it that is factual and interesting. The other 5% consist of boring opinions (if you do not agree with Meier like I do not) that go off on tangents and are not needed here. If I could edit this book I would put all of Meier's stuff at the end in its own chapter. Read Caesar's work first - Bellum Gallica and Bellum Civile (I read the first one here), and know something about the politics and history of Rome during the late Republic. Then read this book.

Rating:
Summary: A good bio of Julius Caesar and Rome, but ...
Review: Meier writes a good book with, for the most part, many facts about JC and Rome and that era.

However he goes off on these tangents where he wants to prove some points. He declares that JC was an outsider and the republic was bound to fall. Yet he does not bring any proof of these 'facts' to this book. He uses the fact that the republic fell to show that what he said was true. I found this a useless part of the book and skimmed over many paragraphs of his rhetorical questions - Why would Caesar do this? Did he not know? yada yada yada.

I love facts. Give me names, dates, places, events. Leave your opinions in separate sections of the book not interwoven in the bio.

The main point Meier makes is that JC was an outsider to Rome's politics. While in fact he was the opposite. JC was as close to the inside as any of the others in the senatorial class. Meier fails to show a typical insider to contrast with this supposed outsider. Cato, Cicero, Pompey were no different than Caesar with respect to any question of a right to be in Rome or in the Senate. Meiere also fails to say exactly why he thinks JC is an outsider.

Another thing I did not like is the fabricated scenes Meier describes. Here is a bit where he talks of Caesar crossing the Rubicon (page 3 already) "There Caesar halted. He hesitated. Once again, beside the swiftly flowing river swollen by heavy rain, he reviewed the various arguments, then reiterated his decision. For a moment he once again took a detached look at the plan he had already embraced; what he had begun to set in train step by step now appeared to him as an awful vision. All the possible consequences of the enterprise presented themselves in their full horror. Contemplating them, he may have felt dizzy."

I think Meier is dizzy. Unless Caesar himself wrote this in some letter or as part of his Bellum Civile it should not be presented in this book. Meier's assumption of what Caesar might have thought is no better than what you or I or any student of the Roman era could think. My own opinion is that Caesar would have already thought of the consequences months earlier (and came to his decision to protect his honour) and that the Rubicon was only a symbol - there would be no ceremony for Caesar on the riverbank. He would have just ridden on by discounting the river's importance. It is nice to have some color in the book to try and bring the reader there but I think we get more of "what Meier would do if he was Caesar" than of what Caesar actually did or could have done.

Julius Caesar was a very complex person with many talents and abilities. Great general, brave leader, master politician, cruel and merciful, an honourable (honour seeking) man at the turning point of Rome where the republic becomes the empire. Meier gives us these pictures of the man, yet he then imposes his own opinions on the reader, which are at times too much to take. Read this book and make up your own mind.

The book is worth it for the 95% of it that is factual and interesting. The other 5% consist of boring opinions (if you do not agree with Meier like I do not) that go off on tangents and are not needed here. If I could edit this book I would put all of Meier's stuff at the end in its own chapter. Read Caesar's work first - Bellum Gallica and Bellum Civile (I read the first one here), and know something about the politics and history of Rome during the late Republic. Then read this book.