Loyalty and deception as the axis of Caesar’s narrative concerning war: propaganda and the cultural context in Commentarii de bello Gallico

There is no doubt that justifying Caesar’s subsequent military campaigns using the argument of barbarians’ disloyalty is too frequent to treat them in a different way than the immanent part of his literary creations. Valuation of their conduct in terms of loyalty – deception had to be based on a pattern having strong cultural roots, otherwise it would not fulfill its role. Explaining specifics of Caesar’s war narrative solely by the requirements of political propaganda does not appear to be sufficient, so cultural context should be considered as well. The author casts in doubt the possibility of direct transferring the Greek concept of ‘barbarity’ into Caesar’s narration, paying attention to the Roman perception of the ‘other’ as understood by Georg Simmel instead. Consequently, it is possible to explain why some Gauls were described as loyal, while others were portrayed as prone to betrayal, although they belonged to the same cultural circle. The essence of the difference was the attitude towards Roman rule, not only the non‑Roman origin or different lifestyle. Determinants such as the perennial fear of Gauls (metus Gallicus) and the conviction of Rome’s unique destiny can not be also omitted, especially since they are closely related to the first aspect.

There is no doubt that justifying Caesar’s subsequent military campaigns using the argument of barbarians’ disloyalty is too frequent to treat them in a different way than the immanent part of his literary creations. Valuation of their conduct in terms of loyalty – deception had to be based on a pattern having strong cultural roots, otherwise it would not fulfill its role. Explaining specifics of Caesar’s war narrative solely by the requirements of political propaganda does not appear to be sufficient, so cultural context should be considered as well. The author casts in doubt the possibility of direct transferring the Greek concept of ‘barbarity’ into Caesar’s narration, paying attention to the Roman perception of the ‘other’ as understood by Georg Simmel instead. Consequently, it is possible to explain why some Gauls were described as loyal, while others were portrayed as prone to betrayal, although they belonged to the same cultural circle. The essence of the difference was the attitude towards Roman rule, not only the non‑Roman origin or different lifestyle. Determinants such as the perennial fear of Gauls (metus Gallicus) and the conviction of Rome’s unique destiny can not be also omitted, especially since they are closely related to the first aspect.