Julius Caesar in the Book of Mormon

[JarMan]

I've pointed out Romanisms in the Book of Mormon before, but this is a really obvious one. What's staggering here is not just the similarities, but the order in which they are listed. The second passage is from Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. How did that find it's way into Alma?

Alma 50

1 And now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites; for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

2 And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.

3 And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.

4 And he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets, and he caused places of security to be built upon those towers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them.

5 And they were prepared that they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength, and slay him who should attempt to approach near the walls of the city.

 

Book 8

9 He commanded the camp to be fortified with a twelve-foot rampart, a breastwork to be built on in proportion to the height of the same, a double trench fifteen feet wide in each case to be dug with perpendicular sides, turrets three stories high to be set up at frequent intervals and connected by covered cross-bridges, having their front faces protected by a breastwork of wattles. His object was to hold the camp against the enemy by the double ditch and a double rank of defenders: one rank, posted on the bridges, from the greater safety afforded by height, could hurl its missiles with greater range and confidence; the other, posted on the actual rampart nearer the enemy, would be covered by the bridge from the showers of missiles. At the gateways he set doors and higher turrets.

[The Nehor]

They aren’t talking about the same thing. Moroni was fortifying cities with fortifications. Romans were infamous in the ancient world for building incredibly formidable marching camps every night. This appears to have been a longer term camp Caesar set up in response to local conditions and not a normal “every night” camp.

They are not equivalent. Roman armies by the time of Caesar were masters of siege warfare and would have taken Moroni’s cities with relative ease. The Lamanites seem to have been complete idiots when it came to siege warfare.

[webbles]

Which translation is this?  And is there an English translation that is pre 1830?  All I'm finding so far are translations in the late 1800s.

[JarMan]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They aren’t talking about the same thing. Moroni was fortifying cities with fortifications. Romans were infamous in the ancient world for building incredibly formidable marching camps every night. This appears to have been a longer term camp Caesar set up in response to local conditions and not a normal “every night” camp.

They are not equivalent. Roman armies by the time of Caesar were masters of siege warfare and would have taken Moroni’s cities with relative ease. The Lamanites seem to have been complete idiots when it came to siege warfare.

Moroni was also building forts as per verses 10 and 11.

[webbles]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are not equivalent. Roman armies by the time of Caesar were masters of siege warfare and would have taken Moroni’s cities with relative ease. The Lamanites seem to have been complete idiots when it came to siege warfare.

I don't think we can use the Book of Alma to say that Lamanites were complete idiots.  Roman armies are definitely far above the Lamanites/Nephites in siege warfare, but in the very next chapter (Alma 51), it says that Amalakiah took a bunch of cities that were strongly fortified (Alma 51:26-27).  From Alma 50 to Alma 51, it was about 5-6 years.  So the Lamanites didn't have any problem taking these fortified places.

Also, Mormon appears to have a really high opinion of Moroni.  So he could have taken liberty in the story to make Moroni look better than he actually was.  He likes to focus on Moroni's successes and briefly mention Lamanite successes.  Mormon is also living during a time when Lamanites are on the advance, so writing about a time when Lamanites were losers probably was consoling.

[webbles]

Here's a different translation of that part - https://historyweblog.com/2015/05/caesars-camp-opposing-bellovaci/

Quote

On account of this obstacle and the numerical superiority of the barbarians, Caesar, though he had wished for battle, abandoned the idea of attacking them and placed his camp opposite that of the Gauls in a strong position. He caused it to be surrounded with a parapet twelve feet high, surmounted by accessory works proportioned to the importance of the retrenchment and preceded by a double fosse fifteen feet wide, with a square bottom. Towers of three stories were constructed from distance to distance and united together by covered bridges, the exterior parts of which were protected by hurdle-work. In this manner the camp was protected not only by a double fosse, but also by a double row of defenders, some of whom, placed on the bridges, could from this elevated and sheltered position throw their missiles farther and with a better aim; while the others, placed on the vallum, nearer to the enemy, were protected by the bridges from the missiles which showered down upon them. The entrances were defended by means of higher towers and were closed with gates.

It doesn't seem to be as a good as match as the translation you have.  I wonder how similar the Latin is.

[JarMan]

32 minutes ago, webbles said:

Which translation is this?  And is there an English translation that is pre 1830?  All I'm finding so far are translations in the late 1800s.

Here's an 1806 version: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Commentaries_of_Caesar/TQjgAAAAMAAJ?gbpv=1

[JarMan]

9 minutes ago, webbles said:

Here's a different translation of that part - https://historyweblog.com/2015/05/caesars-camp-opposing-bellovaci/

It doesn't seem to be as a good as match as the translation you have.  I wonder how similar the Latin is.

You can see the Latin side-by-side here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hirt.+Gal.+8.9&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0001

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Here's an 1806 version: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Commentaries_of_Caesar/TQjgAAAAMAAJ?gbpv=1

Thanks.  Found it on pages 82-83.

21 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Moroni was also building forts as per verses 10 and 11.

Caesar's fort is a different type of fort.  It is meant to stay around for a few days and then be torn down.  The Roman armies built a fort every single night when they marched.  In this specific case, Caesar made the fortifications larger.  The next paragraph explains his reasoning behind making it larger.  Moroni appears to be building permanent forts.

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, JarMan said:

You can see the Latin side-by-side here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hirt.+Gal.+8.9&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0001

I had also found it at https://archive.org/details/gallicwar00caes/page/528/mode/2up.  But I don't know Latin so I have no idea how similar it is.

[JarMan]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

Thanks.  Found it on pages 82-83.

Caesar's fort is a different type of fort.  It is meant to stay around for a few days and then be torn down.  The Roman armies built a fort every single night when they marched.  In this specific case, Caesar made the fortifications larger.  The next paragraph explains his reasoning behind making it larger.  Moroni appears to be building permanent forts.

Okay. Why do you suppose there is such a similarity here, not just with the general design of the fortifications, but also with the order of things being described?

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Okay. Why do you suppose there is such a similarity here, not just with the general design of the fortifications, but also with the order of things being described?

Because that is a logical way of building defenses?

At least every show I have ever seen starts with building barricades before anything else. Makes sense after the defenses are up one builds towers for better sight and to be able to fire down upon the enemy.

I have absolutely no combat experience but would build them that way. Dirt walls as fast and solid, can’t be rammed down, doesn’t waste a lot of wood building up height or time using brick or stone; then build up from their flattened tops for more height and then towers because it would be stupid to be blind and unable to aim projectiles.  And of course the towers should be protected so the people on them aren’t exposed. 

Edited January 6, 2025 by Calm

[Dario_M]

Nowhere in the scriptures that you have shown us i read the name of Julius Caesar in it. And i can not remember that i've read his name anywhere in the book of mormon as well to be honest. 

[JarMan]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because that is a logical way of building defenses?

At least every show I have ever seen starts with building barricades before anything else. Makes sense after the defenses are up one builds towers for better sight and to be able to fire down upon the enemy.

I have absolutely no combat experience but would build them that way. Dirt walls as fast and solid, can’t be rammed down, doesn’t waste a lot of wood building up height or time using brick or stone; then build up from their flattened tops for more height and then towers because it would be stupid to be blind and unable to aim projectiles.  And of course the towers should be protected so the people on them aren’t exposed. 

It's not just the fortifications themselves that are similar, but also their descriptions.

By your reasoning, this description should be ubiquitous--we should see it in other accounts of warfare.

 

[JarMan]

Later, in paragraph 72 we have this description:

"...he drew two trenches fifteen feet broad, and of the same depth; the innermost of them, being in low and level ground, he filled with water conveyed from the river. Behind these he raised a rampart and wall twelve feet high; to this he added a parapet and battlements, with large stakes cut like stags' horns, projecting from the junction of the parapet and battlements, to prevent the enemy from scaling it, and surrounded the entire work with turrets, which were eighty feet distant from one another."

I believe Moroni's "frame of pickets" is equivalent to Caesar's "large stakes cut like stags' horns". So every defensive work described in the Book of Mormon has an equivalent description from Caesar:

1) Trench

2) Rampart

3) Breastwork

4) Sharpened stakes

5) Towers

6) Projectile protection

Interestingly, the Nephites don't appear to have constructed gates, but instead kept gaps in the works.

Edited January 6, 2025 by JarMan

[Zosimus]

A few weeks back I'd gone through a lot of Charles Anthon material. This was in his 1838 Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War:



Its too late to be of any relevance to his meeting with Martin Harris, but I do find it interesting that the three people (Bradish, Mitchill, Anthon) that Harris met with a month before the translation of the Book of Mormon began were America's leading experts on much of the material often thought to be too obscure and sophisticated to be available to Joseph before 1830. 

[Kenngo1969]

Boy, that Joseph Smith, he was a really well-read fella, 'specially for a frontier farm boy!  Why, I'd bet (if I were a betting man) that his card for the Palmyra Public Library was really well used ... 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've pointed out Romanisms in the Book of Mormon before, but this is a really obvious one. What's staggering here is not just the similarities, but the order in which they are listed. The second passage is from Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. How did that find it's way into Alma?

Alma 50

1 And now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites; for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

2 And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.

3 And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.

4 And he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets, and he caused places of security to be built upon those towers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them.

5 And they were prepared that they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength, and slay him who should attempt to approach near the walls of the city.

 

Book 8

9 He commanded the camp to be fortified with a twelve-foot rampart, a breastwork to be built on in proportion to the height of the same, a double trench fifteen feet wide in each case to be dug with perpendicular sides, turrets three stories high to be set up at frequent intervals and connected by covered cross-bridges, having their front faces protected by a breastwork of wattles. His object was to hold the camp against the enemy by the double ditch and a double rank of defenders: one rank, posted on the bridges, from the greater safety afforded by height, could hurl its missiles with greater range and confidence; the other, posted on the actual rampart nearer the enemy, would be covered by the bridge from the showers of missiles. At the gateways he set doors and higher turrets.

The Romans got their ideas from Moroni who had done this 10-20 years before they did.

[webbles]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's not just the fortifications themselves that are similar, but also their descriptions.

By your reasoning, this description should be ubiquitous--we should see it in other accounts of warfare.

 

The Roman fortifications are very similar to what Moroni described.  But the Motte-and-bailey castles are also very similar.  Most early fortifications are like that.  You first build a rampart and a ditch in front of it, then you put your walls on it (either made of wood or made of stone).  You then need a place to put men on top of the walls, so you build towers along the wall that jut out of the wall.  The fort that Caesar is describing is a little different because he put bridges that connect the towers but that is not normal for Roman forts (as it takes more time to build).  Moroni's fortifications don't mention putting in the bridges but he had plenty of time and he was building permanent fortifications so it is interesting that it isn't mentioned.

I would believe that the description is ubiquitous.  That's how forts were built.  Here's a description of the generic Roman camping fort - https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/military/roman-fortresses-forts-and-camps/the-structure-of-a-roman-fort/.  Here's another description of Roman camping forts that also talk about other ancient fortifications (including Native American) - https://acoup.blog/2021/11/12/collections-fortification-part-ii-roman-playing-cards/

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

Okay. Why do you suppose there is such a similarity here, not just with the general design of the fortifications, but also with the order of things being described?

1) Because military geniuses think similarly. 

2) Because Wisdom imparts similar information to aid people.

[InCognitus]

Multiple discovery, or simultaneous inventions (inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by multiple scientists and inventors), is a thing.  It happens all the time.  People have known about this phenomena for years.  So what's the big deal?

[SteveO]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've pointed out Romanisms in the Book of Mormon before, but this is a really obvious one. What's staggering here is not just the similarities, but the order in which they are listed. The second passage is from Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. How did that find it's way into Alma?

Alma 50

1 And now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites; for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

2 And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.

3 And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.

4 And he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets, and he caused places of security to be built upon those towers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them.

5 And they were prepared that they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength, and slay him who should attempt to approach near the walls of the city.

 

Book 8

9 He commanded the camp to be fortified with a twelve-foot rampart, a breastwork to be built on in proportion to the height of the same, a double trench fifteen feet wide in each case to be dug with perpendicular sides, turrets three stories high to be set up at frequent intervals and connected by covered cross-bridges, having their front faces protected by a breastwork of wattles. His object was to hold the camp against the enemy by the double ditch and a double rank of defenders: one rank, posted on the bridges, from the greater safety afforded by height, could hurl its missiles with greater range and confidence; the other, posted on the actual rampart nearer the enemy, would be covered by the bridge from the showers of missiles. At the gateways he set doors and higher turrets.

You know “The Art of War” is still taught in military academies today? Easy Company’s taking of the German battery zero’d in on Omaha Beach is still taught at West Point 80 years later?
 

Sound military tactics transcend time, space, and culture.

[Kevin Christensen]

Vogel's Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon offered descriptions of Hopewell and Moundbuilder structures, and Sorenson's Ensign articles on Digging into the Book of Mormon in 1986 included depictions of ancient Mesoamerican pallisaded fortifications.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/09/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture?lang=eng\l

The more recent LiDar surveys have revealed much more.  Nibley's response to Brodie had noted that these kinds of defensive fortifications are widespread throughout the world.

John Gee's important essay "The Wrong Type of Book" includes this observation about the literary style of the Book of Mormon compared to other American books such as the Spaulding Ms. and View of the Hebrews. 

 

Quote

The setting of both the Book of Pukei and “Manuscript
Found” is a world dominated by the cultural heritage of the
Roman Empire, while the setting of the Book of Mormon
is dominated by the ancient Near Eastern and Mesoameri-
can cultures. Thus when the Book of Pukei refers to “an old
book in an unknown tongue,” it turns out to be “Cicero’s
Orations in Latin.”17 Those orations constituted a common
Latin school text in the nineteenth century, and mastery of
it was required for university admission. Similarly, Rever-
end Spaulding set his novel as coming from “twenty eight
sheets of parchment... written in an eligant [sic] hand with
Roman Letters & in the Latin Language.”18 This manuscript
was supposed to have been written by one Fabius at the time
of Constantine, who, with a group of Romans, was blown
off course on a sea voyage to Britain.19 The heavy Roman
bias is typical of nineteenth-century America, where the
Roman Republic was consciously imitated.
Even View of the Hebrews shows the influence of Latin,
for it begins with a discussion of the Roman destruction of
Jerusalem based on the Bible and supplemented by Greek
(Josephus) and Latin sources (Tacitus, Suetonius),20 and it

includes an appeal to Scaliger, the classical scholar.21 The
Book of Mormon, on the other hand, refers to the Babylo-
nian destruction of Jerusalem six hundred years earlier

....

The nineteenth-century concern with Latin and imi-
tating its style in speech and writing is partly a product of
the educational system of the time. Reverend Spaulding’s
manuscript reflects this penchant for Latinate expression.
In Latin the term inqu.it, meaning “he said” or “she said,”
is placed after the first word of a quotation. Because Latin
grammar was a model for English grammar, quotations
that mimicked the inquit form became a point of good
English style.

...

The Book of Mormon, however, follows not the style
esteemed in the nineteenth century but normal Hebrew
syntax in introducing quotations. For example:
And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a
Great Spirit? (Alma 18:26)
It is remarkable that, even as a nineteenth-century transla-
tion, the Book of Mormon eschews certain syntactic fea-
tures common in the language of Joseph Smith’s day.
Like the Book of Mormon, View of the Hebrews con-
tains some narrative portions with dialogue.25 But any
similarity between the two works in that regard ends on
that general level. For example, while Ethan Smith did
not use the inquit form as Spaulding did, he did follow
Latin style by varying verbs when attributing quotations.
i

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/wrong-type-book

Nibley and Daniel Peterson have made notable comparisons to the Book of Mormon compared to Clauswitz, and Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevera.  Sorenson and Gardner have looked closely at the Mesoamerican context.  It is fair to compare Julius Ceasar's writings, but it remains far more telling to look to the context the Book of Mormon claims for itself. It's not enough to identify something that Joseph Smith supposedly could have drawn from his environment, but to me, it is necessary to show that environmental sources can explain everything.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[InCognitus]

If we want to go the parallelomania route with this Julius Caesar thing, why not also have Joseph Smith using the death of Julius Caesar as the model for how Amalickiah plotted and executed the death of the king in Alma 47?  Certainly nobody could have come up with doing a death by stabbing in any other way, right?

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't think we can use the Book of Alma to say that Lamanites were complete idiots.  Roman armies are definitely far above the Lamanites/Nephites in siege warfare, but in the very next chapter (Alma 51), it says that Amalakiah took a bunch of cities that were strongly fortified (Alma 51:26-27).  From Alma 50 to Alma 51, it was about 5-6 years.  So the Lamanites didn't have any problem taking these fortified places.

Also, Mormon appears to have a really high opinion of Moroni.  So he could have taken liberty in the story to make Moroni look better than he actually was.  He likes to focus on Moroni's successes and briefly mention Lamanite successes.  Mormon is also living during a time when Lamanites are on the advance, so writing about a time when Lamanites were losers probably was consoling.

What the Romans were good at was storming a city without a long siege. They were uniquely good at this. Compare it to the Spartans who were garbage at siege warfare and often couldn’t maintain a siege within a few days march from home.

It is possible the cities the Lamanites took fell to treachery from within or just a surrender. In ancient times it was customary to treat cities that surrendered without laying in for a siege pretty well. If you resisted and the city eventually fell standard practice was pillage, rape, murder, and taking a lot of the inhabitants of the fallen city as slaves. There was an incentive to give up unless you were expecting relief or had a good chance of outlasting the besieger’s food supply.

Alexander the Great’s campaigns started with a few sieges with exceptionally cruel treatment (even for that time) of the inhabitants of captured cities. Later Alexander rarely had to besiege cities and towns. They just gave up due to the reputation of Alexander’s successes and wanting to avoid what happened to other places that resisted.