According to Philip Freeman's account, Julius Caesar may have been the most misunderstood man in history. He owed his military and political career to the plebians, the lower class Romans with whom he sided. By doing this he won the never-ending antipathy of the patrician families who controlled the Roman senate.

As a general Caesar led from the front. When he was in danger of losing a battle to the patrician forces in Spain, he charged the opposing line single-handedly, embarrassing his men into redoubling their efforts, snatching victory from defeat. We know as much as we do about Caesar thanks to his own account of the GALLIC WARS, which has survived, and Freeman quotes from it extensively. Perhaps Caesar's most impressive victory was the BATTLE OF ALESIA, where he fought a two front battle against the Gauls under Vercingetorix whom he'd cornered in the city, only to be confronted by 100,000 Gaulish soldiers in his rear.

We see Caesar rise from a poor patrician family living in the slums of Rome to work his way up from military tribune, to sequester, to aedile, to preaetor and eventually consul of Rome. One of his first official acts was to redistribute land to the plebians and the Roman soldiers, some of which was taken from the rich patrician families who controlled the Senate. On his way to becoming consul, Caesar was in charge of keeping the Appian Way in good repair. Caesar was not only a great general and politician, he was also an engineer, a great public speaker, and a lawyer.

We also get a good look at the Roman Civil Wars. At first, Caesar gained power through a triumvirate with the great general Pompey and Crassus a rich Roman senator. But because of his successes in Gaul, Pompey became jealous and eventually went to war with Caesar after Caesar crossed the Rubicon, a sort of demilitarized zone most generals knew not to cross. Pompey had a large army, more than twice as large as Caesars. When Caesar confronted him in Greece, it looked like the jig was up once again. It was only because of his supreme confidence and superior tactical skills that Caesar was able to defeat the great Pompey.

As you read this biography, you will be amazed at the number of times, Caesar snatched victory from defeat. He should've lost in Gaul, he should've lost to the patrician forces in Spain, he should've been decimated in Egypt. Pompey had him defeated but was too cautious to move in for the kill. Caesar's undoing came when he had defeated the patrician forces and come home to accept his laurels. He was given four triumphs (victory parades) and was made dictator for ten years. During one of the triumphs his soldiers complained that Caesar was spending too much money that should've rightfully gone to his old soldiers. Caesar had two of them put to death and sacrificed to the god Mars. He let the laurels go to his head, and the conspirators were worried he wanted to be king.

My one complaint about the book is that we don't get a real good look at the plot to assassinate Caesar. We don't really know who these people were, other than that Brutus was a former favorite. It's hard to understand why Caesar's former supporters were part of the plot, other than that they were worried Caesar was about to bring down the five hundred-year-old Republic. But as Caesar always said, "The Republic has been dead for years."

I was a history major in college but I never had a firm grip on the civil war between Caesar and Pompey until I read this book, and I never really knew what a great man Caesar was. There's certainly evidence to support Alexander Hamilton's contention that Julius Caesar was the greatest man who ever lived.