NUGAE

There are some finer points in here that could make it worth your while.

Abstract: Julius Caesar was remembered in later times for the unprecedented scale of his military activity. He was also remembered for writing copiously while on campaign. Focusing on the period of Rome’s war with Gaul (58–50 BCE), this paper argues that the two activities were interrelated: writing helped to facilitate the Roman conquest of the Gallic peoples. It allowed Caesar to send messages within his own theater of operations, sometimes with distinctive advantages; it helped him stay in touch with Rome, from where he obtained ever more resources; and it helped him, in his Gallic War above all, to turn the story of his scattered campaigns into a coherent narrative of the subjection of a vast territory henceforward to be called “Gaul.” The place of epistolography in late Republican politics receives new analysis in the paper, with detailed discussion of the evidence of Cicero.

http://historyoftheancientworld.com/2012/10/the-pen-and-the-sword-writing-and-conquest-in-caesars-gaul/

It was already quite clear where it happened - but now there is proof?

AFP - Archaeologists said Wednesday they believe they have found the exact spot in Rome where Julius Caesar was stabbed to death on March 15, 44 BC.

The stabbing of the dictator by Roman senators was recorded by ancient historians and dramatised by William Shakespeare who gave Caesar the last words: “Et tu Brute? Then fall, Caesar.”

Now, a team from the Spanish National Research Council say they have unearthed evidence that, they believe, reveals precisely where the attack took place.

They say they have found a concrete structure, three metres (10 feet) wide and two metres (nearly seven feet) high, that was erected by his adoptive son and successor, Augustus.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121010-scientists-claim-find-spot-julius-caesars-slaying

This not Caesar.  Please read below as to why - besides the fact that he doesn’t look like Caesar at all. Nope, can’t be him. Or can it?

What do you do if you are an archaeologist and you find a nice Roman portrait bust in the bottom of a river?

The answer is simple. You go through every book of Roman portraits and coins until you find some famous figure in Roman history who looks vaguely likely your man. It is laborious and time-consuming. But the principles are simple – it’s like a game of snap.

Why bother? Because almost every newspaper in the western world will be interested in your find if you say confidently that it is Cleopatra or Nero or Julius Caesar (and even more interested if you say that this is the earliest statue or the only one really taken from life – which is also a useful cover-up for the fact that your statue doesn’t look quite like all the others supposed to represent the famous figure).

However beautiful or important your find, no newspaper will be searching you out, if you have only found Marcus Cornelius Nonentito.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2008/05/the-face-of-jul.html

I haven’t read it in a while, but I shall read it again soon, thanks to this article. It’s a remarkable book and left a lasting impression on me.

It’s a political book. Gaius Sallustius Crispus, or short Sallust, was firmly in Caesars camp and uses this opportunity to paint the old Roman aristocracy as degenerate. He’s very effective and does not fail to mention that Caesar himself had no part in the conspiracy. Later he becomes one of Caesar’s generals, but only with very modest success.

Sallust was a much better writer and historian than general. He was well regarded by his peers in antiquity and has been compared to Thucydides - not that his work would need such references. Just pick up any book by any other ancient historian - and then read The Conspiracy - anybody but Thucydides will not fare too well.

It’s a masterpiece, a great piece of art.

http://historyoftheancientworld.com/2012/01/the-failure-of-catilines-conspiracy/

There are no reports extant from people who were with Caesar when he crossed that river confirming that he hesitated like Suetonius writes.

Caesar himself in the Civil War does not make a big deal out of it, so it seems. He writes that after he had make sure that his troops were with him he took the 13th and marched to Ariminum (modern Rimini) which involved the crossing of the Rubicon, a lesser river marking the border between the Italian province of Gaul and Italy proper.

To me the message of this passage in his book is evident: he needed to make clear that the senate and Pompey left him with no choice, even if he actually did hesitate. Now let’s get some impression where this hesitation could have come from.

http://historyoftheancientworld.com/2012/01/analyzing-caesars-motivations-and-emotions-on-the-banks-the-rubicon/