The Bellum Gallicum was the account of Caesar's campaigns in Gaul from 58 to 52 BC, in which he used a third-person style to narrate events chronologically, with little overt reflection or assessment for the audience. This narrative conceit might leave a reader unsure of any underlying military principles, particularly as the work is highly self-promotional and often uses literary devices such as speeches and exempla. However, the work provides important information on warfare, whether that simply be through the details of historical battles or through the representation of the commanders described therein. Caesar's choice of words in describing events also reveals ideals that are important for an understanding of Roman generalship. This chapter focuses on one such word, fortuna, and how its pattern of use gives insight into command at critical points in each campaign narrative. The information conveyed can be as simple as the rating of a battle's success using fortuna as a qualification, or more comprehensive assessments of subordinates and enemy leaders. An examination of fortuna in conjunction with the concept of virtus is also useful, as it qualifies the general Roman admiration for virtus by showing that it is an attribute that a commander relied on only when everything else had failed. Fortuna even highlights the matters that caused Caesar the most frustration, as is evident in Book 6, where there is a dramatic change in use as he struggled to present a campaign against an elusive enemy. Examination of these patterns and objectives that surround the use of fortuna in the Bellum Gallicum provides valuable information on Caesar's presentation of command and his ideals as a Roman general.

While there are questions over the veracity of the text, these can be addressed by recognising that an objective of the work was to promote Caesar's military compe-tence. The question of whether Caesar was telling the truth, not only about fortuna but indeed regarding historical events, has been the subject of much debate. However, this chapter follows recent scholarship that recognises the work as self-promotional and highly persuasive in intent, while generally less convinced that it is full of out-right fabrications.