Comments on: Caesar’s Dignity Bridge

By: Cody

Cody — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:09:47 +0000

Nice. Thanks for the info.

By: 100swallows

100swallows — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:22:11 +0000

Thanks a lot, Ritesh Ranjan. Riht now I can’t answer your long and interesting comment as I would like to; but I urge you to read Cicero. More is known about Caesar than about Alexander, mainly because he himself wrote and because the greatest writer of the age, Cicero, who knew him, wrote about him and his dictatorship in exciting letters. Cicero admired him but came to hate him because he gave the coup de grace to the Roman Republic. Look Cicero wrote about him:

“His character was an amalgamation of genius, method, memory, culture, thoroughness, intellect, and industry. His achievements in war, though disastrous for our country, were none the less mighty. After working for many years to become king and autocrat, he surmounted tremendous efforts and perils and achieved his purpose. By entertainments, public works, food-distributions, and banquets, he seduced the ignorant populace; his friends he bound to his allegiance by rewarding them, his enemies by what looked like mercy. By a mixture of intimidation and indulgence, he inculcated in a free community the habit of servitude.”

By: Ritesh Ranjan

Ritesh Ranjan — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:50:02 +0000

Fascinating, I must say. I am not a historian, infact, I am a Training & Development professional working for an American MNC in India. However, I’ve been greatly interested in History ever since I studied about Alexander in the sixth grade. I like reading about World History in general and Indian History in particular. Alexander has always captured my imagination and I’ve read 5-6 books on his life and campaigns. I’ll admit though that my knowledge of the life of Julius Caesar is entirely based on Shakespeare’s play and I know he did not write about the historical Caesar. He created a character that in comparison would make Brutus look pious, righteous, and worthy of emulation. Shakespeare’s Caesar was physically weak (epileptic and deaf in the right ear), pompous, and worse, condescending of his friends and colleagues in the senate. However, reading your post I could not help but draw comparisons between Alexander and Caesar. Both were ambitious and brave, both had an appetite for going after the unknown, both had astute military and tactical acumen, both led from the front, both thrived in danger, and both were excellent orators and motivators. Reading about the Dignity Bridge, I recalled Alexander’s campaign against Tyre, when he ordered a bridge to be built on sea to lead to the island nation. The bridge was built in quick time against all odds and was strong enough for the Macedonian army to take their huge battering rams to the city gates. It was more a show of power than anything else. The capture of the Sogdian rock is another such example. And of course, the crossing of the river Hydaspes in the middle of the night in which Alexander almost drowned, to launch a surprise attack on Porus. There are many more and they all cannot be captured in this space here. Yes, Alexander achieved a lot more at a much younger age and Caesar is believed to have cried at Alexander’s grave, saying he had achieved nothing in comparison to what Alexander did by the age of 32. Anyway, I loved this post and hope to read many more on Caesar and Roman History. I like the way you write…its simple and lucid yet powerful.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:42:36 +0000

It’s funny how that whoever wins in politics is not essentially the smart one, but is the one who is an expert at convincing others to do something.

By: 100swallows

100swallows — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:13:33 +0000

Erika:
Caesar must have been sure that the Germani wouldn’t soon cross back over the river because the next thing he did before winter set in was to hurry over to Britannia.

The Senate voted for an official thanksgiving, not for the bridge as such but for Caesar’s victory over the Germani. His arch-enemy Cato condemned the vote, however, saying that Caesar had acted criminally when he massacred the enemy during a truce.

What happened? Caesar says he had not agreed to any truce and it was the enemy that were treacherous. They tricked him twice and tried a third time by pretending to come to his camp to negotiate. He arrested the envoys and attacked the enemy camp while they weren’t expecting him. He killed all the women and children he could find too. That in itself was nothing criminal to a Roman mind. Roman armies habitually killed whole enemy populations to terrorize or eliminate resistance. What was criminal was the violation of a truce, the breaking of your word of honor. Cato said Caesar should have been turned over to the Germani to punish as they saw fit.

By: erikatakacs

erikatakacs — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:31:57 +0000

That’s what I call a show of force! I hope that took care of the Germans for a long time. Did it? If it did, he saved loads of money for Rome, for not having to come back to defend the weak borders. Does he say anything about what was the echo of his genius stunt back in Rome?

Very apt title for your great post.

By: expat21

expat21 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:32:32 +0000

Fascinating, as usual. I especially enjoyed the third picture which gave me an idea of how such a bridge was constructed in ancient times.

Expat 21