Editing Gallic Wars (section)

=== The ''Commentarii'' ===
[[File:Vercingétorix_statère_Gallica_avers.jpg|thumb|Gold [[stater]] of Vercingetorix, 53–52 BC.{{sfn|Delestrée|2004}}]]
The main contemporary source for the conflict is Julius Caesar's ''[[Commentarii de Bello Gallico]]'', which was largely taken as truthful and accurate until the 20th century. As late as 1908, [[Camille Jullian]] wrote a comprehensive history of Gaul and took Caesar's account as unerring. But after World War&nbsp;II, historians began to question if Caesar's claims stood up.{{sfn|Henige|1998}}{{Sfn|Grillo|Krebs|2018|p=7}}

Historian [[David Henige]] takes issue with the supposed population and warrior counts. Caesar claims that he could estimate the population of the Helvetii because in their camp there was a census, written in Greek on tablets, which had shown 263,000 Helvetii and 105,000 allies, of whom exactly one quarter (92,000) were combatants. But Henige points out that such a census would have been difficult to achieve by the Gauls, that it made no sense to be written in Greek by non-Greek tribes, and that carrying such a large quantity of stone or wood tablets on their migration would have been a monumental feat. Henige finds it oddly convenient that exactly one quarter were combatants, suggesting that the numbers were more likely exaggerated by Caesar than counted by census. Contemporary authors also estimated the population of the Helvetii and their allies was lower; [[Livy]] surmised that there were 157,000 overall (though Henige still believes this number is inaccurate).{{sfn|Henige|1998}} [[Hans Delbrück]] estimates that there were at most 20,000 migrating Helvetii, of whom 12,000 were warriors.{{sfn|Delbrück|1990|p=475}} Gilliver thinks there were no more than 50,000 Helvetii and allies.{{Sfn|Gilliver|2003|pp=33–35}}

[[File:Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic war, with a vocabulary and notes - DPLA - 1a746426c2bb5a80313795323c08babd (page 72).jpg|thumb|A page from an 1864 printing of the ''Commentarii'', made by [[Parrish & Willingham]], a [[Confederate States of America|Confederate]] publisher during the [[American Civil War]]]]
During the campaign against the Usipetes and the Tenceri, Caesar makes the incredible claim that the Romans attacked a camp of 430,000, their victory was total, they lost not a single soldier, and that upon losing the tribes committed mass suicide. Henige finds this entire story impossible, as did [[Ferdinand Lot]], writing in 1947. Lot was one of the first modern authors who directly questioned the validity of these numbers, finding a fighting force of 430,000 to have been unbelievable for the time.{{sfn|Henige|1998}} Gilliver also considers 430,000 to be absurd, but does note that it was likely the Romans killed tens of thousands, and finds the claim of zero Roman losses possible. Still, the action to annihilate a non-combatant camp was exceptionally brutal, even by Roman standards.{{Sfn|Gilliver|2003|pp=43–49}} Ben Kiernan, while noting the 430,000 to be exaggerated, otherwise accepts Caesar's account and describes the action as [[genocide]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kiernan |first=Ben |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/79860405 |title=Blood and soil : a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur |date=2007 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0-300-10098-3 |location=New Haven |pages=59 |oclc=79860405}}</ref>

Ultimately, modern scholars see the ''Commentarii'' as a very clever piece of propaganda written by Caesar, built to make Caesar appear far grander than he was. Henige notes that Caesar's matter-of-fact tone and easy-to-read writing made it all the easier to accept his outlandish claims. He sought to portray his fight as a justified defense against the barbarity of the Gauls (which was important, as Caesar had been the aggressor contrary to his claims). By making it appear that he had won against overwhelming odds and suffered minimal casualties, he further reinforced the belief that he and the Romans were protected by the gods and destined to win against the heathen barbarians of Gaul. Overall, Henige concludes that, "Julius Caesar must be considered one of history's earliest—and most durably successful—[[Spin (propaganda)|'spin doctors]]{{'"}}.{{sfn|Henige|1998}} Gilliver also calls Caesar a "spin-doctor", noting that he realized the importance of keeping up appearances in Rome.{{Sfn|Gilliver|2003|p=7}}

[[Kurt Raaflaub]] argues, in contrast to Henige and Gilliver, that Caesar's campaign was not in fact exceptionally brutal compared to the standards of the day, even if it is considered ghoulish by modern standards. Raaflaub notes that Caesar generally tried to avoid battle where it was unnecessary, and tried to be more lenient than most generals of his time. Whether true or not, Caesar seems to go to great lengths to appear as having the moral high ground. This allows Caesar to compare himself favorably to the "barbarian" Gauls, and present himself, as Raaflaub puts it, as the "perfect Roman citizen". Raaflaub contends that Caesar's work is certainly full of propaganda, but that it has more truth to it than most authors believe. Above all, he argues that it shows how Caesar envisioned himself, and how he thought a leader ought to rule. Raaflaub notes that Caesar's subjugation of the Gauls would have been received favorably at home, and have been considered a just peace.{{Sfn|Grillo|Krebs|2018|pp=20–27}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Raaflaub |first=Kurt |date=2021 |title=Caesar and Genocide: Confronting the Dark Side of Caesar's Gallic Wars |journal=New England Classical Journal |language=en |volume=48 |issue=1 |pages=54–80|doi=10.52284/NECJ/48.1/article/raaflaub |s2cid=236550544 |doi-access=free }}</ref>