Is Caesar overrated as general? [Archive]

Macilrille

02-20-2010, 12:45

Yes, I mean Vercingetorix. By the time Caesar came around, the Gallic tribes were exhausted from centuries of civil war. Most of their good warriors were dead and their resources exhausted.

The army Vercingetorix raised was mostly a rag tag band of barely trained farmers who had just beat their farming tools into spears...especially during his revolt against his own nobility. Whatever well equipped and well trained warriors he did have were few in number. I'm sure the number of actual warriors in his army increased later on, but I'd say most of his army wasn't exactly well trained nor well equipped.

As for half starving, the Gauls were short on supplies resources. And they were pretty much starved-to-death by the time Caesar won Alesia.

IMO, Caesar's victories are entirely overrated since it was entirely an asymettrical war. Rome near its post-Marian Republican height with far more resources, manpower, etc VS the Gallic tribes who were half dead from fighting each other and many of which had already essentially become Roman tributaries.

I am, to say the least, very interested in your sources for this?

I am also a bit puzzled at how everybody here inevitably claims that it whenever one of Rome's famous victories gets mentioned they always ascribe it not to skill, organisation and training, but always to manpower, as if Rome was a sort of antique version of 1940 USSR.
Throughout the late Republic, from the Grachii and on to the early empire manpower was always a great problem for Romans in raising armies. In his volumnious study of Roman manpower that I have mentioned several times, Brunt concludes:

1) In the 2nd Punic War Rome lost 20- 25% of its manpower. This means that the argument that Rome only defeated mighty Macedonia because mighty Macedonia had been involved in centuries of warfare and intercinene strife, depleting its manpower is moot. With 25% of its men of fighting age dead, Rome was at least as depleted as Macedonia, nor were the men fighting the 2nd Macedonian re-enlisted veterans (Evocatii), according to Brunt, only one legion consisted of such men.

2) At the time of The Civil Wars, manpower was again a problem after 2-3 generations of bloody wars and civil wars, and many legions were quite low on manpower. Much like, if not as bad (I do not have Brunt to hand, so I do not remember the actual numbers), the German "Shadow Dvisions" of late WWII. Before embarking on his conquest of Gaul, Caivs Ivlivs raised one of his legions from Cisalpine Gauls who were not even citizens and retroactively gave them citizenship- thus causing an uproar amongst the Boni back home. However, the men were just not available for his army, so he had to find other solutions. Again, Rome had suffered some very- very bloody defeats (amongst it Arausio, Rome's greatest defeat ever), then been involved in the bloody Social and Civil Wars. It is no coincidence that Germanicus found Legions revolting because the men were dissatisfied with long service. There simply were few Italian men left to draft.

Further, I know of no evidence, written ancient or archeological that says that Gaul was "exhausted by civil war", that their "good warriors were dead", nor that "they were starving to death". AFAIK Gaul was thriving as the Celtic Iron Age drew to a close, the mere name of that period sort of hints that Celts were economically and culturally dominant in Europe N of the Alps. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary and enlighten me. But I fail to see that Gaul would have been more exhausted than Italy. And before you talk of civil strife within Gaul, remember that amobngst Celts and Germans low-level civil strife was the norm. Antropologically/socialogically speaking such is the consequence of the early state and its evolution, but to the northern barbarians it was a matter of honour and resources, and a way of life.

So, as I see it, it was hardly because Caesar went for an exhausted and depleted Gaul that he won, rather the opposite. In fact Caesar was desperate for riches, why would he go for a devastated area devoid of people (to till the land and create income and to be sold as slaves) and wealth? When he was through with Gaul it was depleted, but certainly not before.

IMO Caesar was great because he thought out of the box of traditional Roman thinking and defeated all comers; Barbarian War Host, guerrilla and a supposedly equal opponent raising Roman, Spanish and N. African style Roman armies against him (do not forget Rome believed Pompey to be one of their best commanders who needed but stamp his foot and legions would spring up- further, he was likely more rich than Crassus after his conquests in the very wealthy east). So no matter who he fought, he adapted and overcame them. He also had a grand vision for his politics in Rome, apparently envisioning more integration, less segregation and thus a strengthening of Rome's Empire. IMO these things make him great, just like the exact same skills made Alexander great; defeating all comers no matter the nature of their armies/tactic, and possessing a vision for their realms.

Mulceber

02-20-2010, 13:50

Gotta say, I think that deserves a balloon, Macilrille. :balloon: -M

Macilrille

02-20-2010, 14:19

Thanks, but I dunno, Intranetusa might have acces to information I have not come across and can thus enlighten my possible lack of knowledge.

Power2the1

02-20-2010, 15:59

Further, I know of no evidence, written ancient or archeological that says that Gaul was "exhausted by civil war", that their "good warriors were dead", nor that "they were starving to death". AFAIK Gaul was thriving as the Celtic Iron Age drew to a close, the mere name of that period sort of hints that Celts were economically and culturally dominant in Europe N of the Alps. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary and enlighten me. But I fail to see that Gaul would have been more exhausted than Italy. And before you talk of civil strife within Gaul, remember that amobngst Celts and Germans low-level civil strife was the norm. Antropologically/socialogically speaking such is the consequence of the early state and its evolution, but to the northern barbarians it was a matter of honour and resources, and a way of life.

I shall enlighten.

There are many sources that refer to the pre-Caesarian conflict in Gaul. People often make the mistake in defining the war in Gaul with total war (which Gauls did NOT do) vs. military depletion on the battlefield. Theres a big difference in this as the former refers to total destruction basically anything of value including sometimes non combatants. The latter is primarily focused on the the actual fighters and those in the military. Anyway, source info:

The Druids and Romanization:

Such an approximation of national unity must be
sought in the period before 121 B.C., at the latest, for in that
year the pan-Gallic confederation led by the Arverni was destroyed
by Rome.18 This blow was followed by the invasions
of the Teutons and Cimbri, which left Gaul desolate and further
disunited.19 Subsequently a trend toward republican
government becomes historically recognizable; 20 the result of
forces, perhaps, that had been at work for some time. And
whereas kings, through a system of alliances, or under the
hegemony of one acknowledged leader, were apparently able
to maintain a certain degree of national unity, the nobility,
which supported the new constitutional governments, tended
to confine its political vision to its particular state. Thus, as
we know, in Caesar's time Gaul was split into warring factions.
21 To this latter period, following a half-century of
poverty, strife, and political change, the idealized Druidism
can hardly belong; it is rather to be referred to a period when
the peace and unity of Gaul made possible a pan-Gallic
organization.

The Germans of Caesar:

These same Helvetians had
recently proved themselves no match for the Romans, and if
Ariovistus had defeated the Gauls it was after they had been exhausted
by internal struggles, and, further, it had been more by
strategy than valour.

Caesar's Strategy in the Gallic War states:
The Gauls....For the most part
they were not veterans, but men hastily levied for a specific purpose.
The speed with which they mustered great numbers was equaled
only by the speed of their dispersal, often rendered imperative through
lack of supplies...On the other hand is a force often overwhelmingly
superior in numbers, spurred on by rash courage and love of country,
but yet undisciplined, inexperienced in Roman warfare, badly organized,
ill furnished with supplies, and following now this leader and
now that until the encroaching progress of the Romans and the
genius of Vercingetorix welded all factions together in a last stand
for Gallic freedom

The Gallic War says:

he (Vercingetorix) did not however desist, but held in the country a levy of the needy and desperate. Having collected such a body of troops, he brings over to his sentiments such of his fellow-citizens as he has access to: he exhorts them to take up arms in behalf of the general freedom, and having assembled great forces he drives from the state his opponents, by whom he had been expelled a short time previously.

that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry
obviously they did not loose*all* against the Germans, but they must have lost quite a few and this was before Caesar went against them

"That there were two parties in the whole of Gaul: that the Aedui stood at the head of one of these, the Arverni of the other. After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years

when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valor.
Note that this is against the Germans, on top of what losses they sustained against the Arverni and Sequani

O' Hogain The Celts A History and Celtic Warriors here:

By this time the Celtic World was under great pressure, and this is reflected by the civil wars between the inhabitants of Transalpine Gaul.

Theres more than this in fact. However, I have yet to see a source that says Gaul was a land without resource and wealth. The war between the Aedui, Averni, and Sequani was directed at the combatants mainly (although Caesar turned it into a butchery contest and brought the war against the innocent), and little in the Gallic War or other sources supports that the war carried itself needlessly far into the environment or food supply. The Gallic aristocracy and veteran warrior class is what would have done most/all of the fighting, and that also means most/all of the dying too. By the time Caesar came around, he was not fighting the 'cream of the crop', but what was mainly left of it. Of course hunger would have been a factor in some areas hit, but I do not read that large scale famine and that kind of thing occurred.

Macilrille

02-20-2010, 18:26

There are many sources that refer to the pre-Caesarian conflict in Gaul. People often make the mistake in defining the war in Gaul with total war (which Gauls did NOT do) vs. military depletion on the battlefield. Theres a big difference in this as the former refers to total destruction basically anything of value including sometimes non combatants. The latter is primarily focused on the the actual fighters and those in the military.

Yes, as I said, the anthropologists has a fancy name for it, but I forgot- my brain is not working properly today. However, I fail to see this and your last statement as contradicting me. Except that I find it hard to believe that all the top-level warriors were gone. In my interpretation of things, the constant internal strife within the Gallic and especially German tribes and lands would keep the warriors well-trained and used to war. Veterans of a sort, and the urbanisation that preceeded the Roman takeover would be (as is the traditional interpretation of urbanisation) a step in the centralisation and strengthening of State(s).

I fail to see the sources for your quote 1, and do not know where you found it. What is his sources? If "A Short History of the Roman Republic" by W. E. Heitland; Cambridge University Press, 1911 I am sorry, but much new evidence and interpretations has been presented since then, so I do not know it it is much more valid than Gibbon's thesis on the collapse of Rome. It may be, but I find it suspect.

The quote on Ariovistus I believe would be this one
If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valor. in this translation.

However it is part of a much larger content, so let us look at that and apply the Historian's trademark, source criticism.

Chapter 39

While he is tarrying a few days at Vesontio, on account of corn and provisions; from the inquiries of our men and the reports of the Gauls and traders (who asserted that the Germans were men of huge stature, of incredible valor and practice in arms - that oftentimes they, on encountering them, could not bear even their countenance, and the fierceness of their eyes) - so great a panic on a sudden seized the whole army, as to discompose the minds and spirits of all in no slight degree. This first arose from the tribunes of the soldiers, the prefects and the rest, who, having followed Caesar from the city [Rome] from motives of friendship, had no great experience in military affairs. And alleging, some of them one reason, some another, which they said made it necessary for them to depart, they requested that by his consent they might be allowed to withdraw; some, influenced by shame, stayed behind in order that they might avoid the suspicion of cowardice. These could neither compose their countenance, nor even sometimes check their tears: but hidden in their tents, either bewailed their fate, or deplored with their comrades the general danger. Wills were sealed universally throughout the whole camp. By the expressions and cowardice of these men, even those who possessed great experience in the camp, both soldiers and centurions, and those [the decurions] who were in command of the cavalry, were gradually disconcerted. Such of them as wished to be considered less alarmed, said that they did not dread the enemy, but feared the narrowness of the roads and the vastness of the forests which lay between them and Ariovistus, or else that the supplies could not be brought up readily enough. Some even declared to Caesar, that when he gave orders for the camp to be moved and the troops to advance, the soldiers would not be obedient to the command, nor advance in consequence of their fear.

Chapter 40

When Caesar observed these things, having called a council, and summoned to it the centurions of all the companies, he severely reprimanded them, "particularly, for supposing that it belonged to them to inquire or conjecture, either in what direction they were marching, or with what object. That Ariovistus, during his [Caesar's] consulship, had most anxiously sought after the friendship of the Roman people; why should any one judge that he would so rashly depart from his duty? He for his part was persuaded, that, when his demands were known and the fairness of the terms considered, he would reject neither his nor the Roman people's favor. But even if, driven on by rage and madness, he should make war upon them, what after all were they afraid of? - or why should they despair either of their own valor or of his zeal? Of that enemy a trial had been made within our fathers' recollection, when, on the defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones by Caius Marius, the army was regarded as having deserved no less praise than their commander himself. It had been made lately, too, in Italy, during the rebellion of the slaves, whom, however, the experience and training which they had received from us, assisted in some respect. From which a judgment might be formed of the advantages which resolution carries with it inasmuch as those whom for some time they had groundlessly dreaded when unarmed, they had afterward vanquished, when well armed and flushed with success. In short, that these were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet can not have been a match for our army. If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valor. But though there had been room for such stratagem against savage and unskilled men, not even [Ariovistus] himself expected that thereby our armies could be entrapped. That those who ascribed their fear to a pretense about the [deficiency of] supplies and the narrowness of the roads, acted presumptuously, as they seemed either to distrust their general's discharge of his duty, or to dictate to him. That these things were his concern; that the Sequani, the Leuci, and the Lingones were to furnish the corn; and that it was already ripe in the fields; that as to the road they would soon be able to judge for themselves. As to its being reported that the soldiers would not be obedient to command, or advance, he was not at all disturbed at that; for he knew, that in the case of all those whose army had not been obedient to command, either upon some mismanagement of an affair, fortune had deserted them, or, that upon some crime being discovered, covetousness had been clearly proved [against them]. His integrity had been seen throughout his whole life, his good fortune in the war with the Helvetii. That he would therefore instantly set about what he had intended to put off till a more distant day, and would break up his camp the next night, in the fourth watch, that he might ascertain, as soon as possible, whether a sense of honor and duty, or whether fear had more influence with them. But that, if no one else should follow, yet he would go with only the tenth legion, of which he had no misgivings, and it should be his praetorian cohort." This legion Caesar had both greatly favored, and in it, on account of its valor, placed the greatest confidence.

Chapter 41

Upon the delivery of this speech, the minds of all were changed in a surprising manner, and the highest ardor and eagerness for prosecuting the war were engendered; and the tenth legion was the first to return thanks to him, through their military tribunes, for his having expressed this most favorable opinion of them; and assured him that they were quite ready to prosecute the war. Then, the other legions endeavored, through their military tribunes and the centurions of the principal companies, to excuse themselves to Caesar, [saying] that they had never either doubted or feared, or supposed that the determination of the conduct of the war was theirs and not their general's. Having accepted their excuse, and having had the road carefully reconnoitered by Divitiacus, because in him of all others he had the greatest faith [he found] that by a circuitous route of more than fifty miles he might lead his army through open parts; he then set out in the fourth watch, as he had said [he would]. On the seventh day, as he did not discontinue his march, he was informed by scouts that the forces of Ariovistus were only four and twenty miles distant from ours.

Now, of course it is all part of the larger context of showing the danger of the Germans in order to justify Caesar's actions against them, and highlight his skill as a commander. However, there can be little doubt that there was fear in the advancing Roman army. Not only is there always some sense of fear before battle, but there was also the well-known "Barbarian Fear" of Romans, most especially they feared the wild Germans, partly because they were largely an unknown factor and we always tend to let our imagination run wild about such. So, caesar gives a speech in which he calms the fears of the soldiers. he does this by making light of the Germans' prowess saying that they themselves had beaten the helvetii who often beat the germans, and that only the exhaustion of a long war had allowed them to beat the Aedui (though of course the Suebi campaigning away from their homelands would have been at least as bad off, living on campaign...). he then goes on to other encouragements. However, the crucial thing in his eulogi is the context. In such contexts exaggerations were often used, not least by Caesar (and in this very speech as well). It can be compared to the belief before "Market garden" and "Wacht am Rhein" that Germany was devoid of resources and had only boys and old men for defence. So as I see it, this is no evidence of how things were. the Aedui might have been weak, but were they more weak than usual and would their manpower have suffered worse than what the past three generations of Roman bloodletting had? We have no idea from this quote.

As for Caesar's Strategy in the Gallic War I must again ask for its sources and age. What sources makes its author state as he does? Where does he have his information from? It also sound pretty high on the rhetorical (and possibly biased) side, but that may just be sugaring the pill (most historians write as boringly as I), but blanket statements full of rhetoric... It is not my cup of tea. To me, it looks suspect and he states no sources at all. As long as he does not, I have to dismiss it again.

Vercingetorix' levy is the most convincing hint. However, right before he is menyioned, lots of other nobles are and as the carnutes operate effectively already with their traditional warbands of nobles, this might again be rhetorics for the reason of underlining Caesar's deeds. It may also be by the simple explanation that in order to oppose the Legions the normal small elite warbands will not suffice and a levy has to be raised. This is the usual practise of barbarians after all, who cannot afford large standing armies. In fact Vercingetorix starts by summoning his dependents, IE the minor nobles in his alliance depending on his leadership and forming his retinue. the word desperate might be a mere trick of the author to show the folly of resisting Caesar. Thus, though tantalising, that quote presents us with no evidence that Gaul was exhausted, starving and depleted of warriors, and certainly not that the bloodletting in Gaul before the invasion was worse than that in Italy.

O' Hogain is right though. The germans and Romans both made inroad in the Celtic world and this might have led to internal strife, but external pressure is one of the things that is important in the formation of states; the communication of autopoietic systems if you will. And the combination Celtic-German did also lead to at least one very strong and thriving tribe, the Marcomanni, not merely to the annihilation of the Celts.

that has little to do with the original bones of contention:

1) Whether gaul was devoid of warriors and resources and Caesar thus merely had to waltz in and take what he wished from the few starving inhabitants. And thus Caesar not being a great general at all.

2) Whether the bloodletting in Gaul, which P2T1 has hinted might have been worse than usual in the last century before the conquest (but merely hinted), was worse than that of the late Roman Republic.

And in none of these do I see us actually contradict each other.

So thanks, but I feel little more enlightened than before and eagerly await Intranetusa's analysis and evidence on which he builds his statements.

Sorry, my shift key is not as it should be.

Power2the1

02-21-2010, 01:13

Yes, as I said, the anthropologists has a fancy name for it, but I forgot- my brain is not working properly today. However, I fail to see this and your last statement as contradicting me. Except that I find it hard to believe that all the top-level warriors were gone. In my interpretation of things, the constant internal strife within the Gallic and especially German tribes and lands would keep the warriors well-trained and used to war. Veterans of a sort, and the urbanisation that preceeded the Roman takeover would be (as is the traditional interpretation of urbanisation) a step in the centralisation and strengthening of State(s).

I fail to see the sources for your quote 1, and do not know where you found it. What is his sources? If "A Short History of the Roman Republic" by W. E. Heitland; Cambridge University Press, 1911 I am sorry, but much new evidence and interpretations has been presented since then, so I do not know it it is much more valid than Gibbon's thesis on the collapse of Rome. It may be, but I find it suspect.

As for Caesar's Strategy in the Gallic War I must again ask for its sources and age. What sources makes its author state as he does? Where does he have his information from? It also sound pretty high on the rhetorical (and possibly biased) side, but that may just be sugaring the pill (most historians write as boringly as I), but blanket statements full of rhetoric... It is not my cup of tea. To me, it looks suspect and he states no sources at all. As long as he does not, I have to dismiss it again.

Vercingetorix' levy is the most convincing hint. However, right before he is menyioned, lots of other nobles are and as the carnutes operate effectively already with their traditional warbands of nobles, this might again be rhetorics for the reason of underlining Caesar's deeds. It may also be by the simple explanation that in order to oppose the Legions the normal small elite warbands will not suffice and a levy has to be raised. This is the usual practise of barbarians after all, who cannot afford large standing armies. In fact Vercingetorix starts by summoning his dependents, IE the minor nobles in his alliance depending on his leadership and forming his retinue. the word desperate might be a mere trick of the author to show the folly of resisting Caesar. Thus, though tantalising, that quote presents us with no evidence that Gaul was exhausted, starving and depleted of warriors, and certainly not that the bloodletting in Gaul before the invasion was worse than that in Italy.

O' Hogain is right though. The germans and Romans both made inroad in the Celtic world and this might have led to internal strife, but external pressure is one of the things that is important in the formation of states; the communication of autopoietic systems if you will. And the combination Celtic-German did also lead to at least one very strong and thriving tribe, the Marcomanni, not merely to the annihilation of the Celts.

that has little to do with the original bones of contention:

1) Whether gaul was devoid of warriors and resources and Caesar thus merely had to waltz in and take what he wished from the few starving inhabitants. And thus Caesar not being a great general at all.

2) Whether the bloodletting in Gaul, which P2T1 has hinted might have been worse than usual in the last century before the conquest (but merely hinted), was worse than that of the late Roman Republic.

And in none of these do I see us actually contradict each other.

So thanks, but I feel little more enlightened than before and eagerly await Intranetusa's analysis and evidence on which he builds his statements.

Sorry, my shift key is not as it should be.

No prob man. The article are rather 'old' and there is a reason for this. They hold their weight today and have certainly not been overruled. Compare the few new articles on this topic vs. the older ones, say pre 1960. You find much more information and a break down of paragraphs/passages in the older articles, this I guarantee. Newer articles are exceedingly brief and tend to rush through everything sadly. Again, this I have seen for myself. A class example is World of the Celts, by Simon James. He it states that Gaul was rather well off overall and alludes to the agricultural level and the infrastructure (which is not at all contested by newer or older sources), but here says nothing about the condition of the military, not even a paragraph or a couple sentences. The topic of the Gallic military in the Gallic War seems to be (but is not) taboo among modern authors. You'll be lucky to get more that two sentences about it, that is, detailing the warriors and the overall situation itself against their enemies.. The older ones,despite their 'age,' delve right in and give a great amount of opinions and facts which one surprisingly learns much more.

If you have access to academic databases like Blackwell, Wiley, and JSTOR, yo can read much on these things.

I cannot tell you how many time I have started, but stopped, on a .pdf with sweeping information about the Gallic military long before and leading up to and in the Gallic War. I really should stick with it next time. I can release it to the public without a copyright issue :book:

Really, if you take the Gallic War alone, Caesar does mention the violent warfare between the Aedui and Arverni. This is not a 'hint' at all but a statement of fact. In 121 B.C. the Romans defeated, heavily, the Arverni. The power vacuum would have certainly resulted in typical warfare as he Arverni tried to maintain their control of trade and hegemony among the 'lesser' tribes and their allies and dependents. from there the conflict might have started, or it could have achieved impetus much later on. We do not know. We know the Cimbri and Teutone were no friends of the Aedui and Arverni either, but little is said about what went on in Gaul militarily, at this time (one would think that 100,000's of families and people moving through would need food, and the breadbasket was Gaul above all others). But what we do know is these two powers sought supremacy through warfare, and apparently the "many years" of this ongoing war were not going to end anytime soon. Thus Caesar ride in and saves the Gauls from themselves and the Germans.

Macilrille

02-21-2010, 11:58

The article are rather 'old' and there is a reason for this. They hold their weight today and have certainly not been overruled. Compare the few new articles on this topic vs. the older ones, say pre 1960. You find much more information and a break down of paragraphs/passages in the older articles, this I guarantee. Newer articles are exceedingly brief and tend to rush through everything sadly. Again, this I have seen for myself. A class example is World of the Celts, by Simon James. He it states that Gaul was rather well off overall and alludes to the agricultural level and the infrastructure (which is not at all contested by newer or older sources), but here says nothing about the condition of the military, not even a paragraph or a couple sentences. The topic of the Gallic military in the Gallic War seems to be (but is not) taboo among modern authors. You'll be lucky to get more that two sentences about it, that is, detailing the warriors and the overall situation itself against their enemies.. The older ones,despite their 'age,' delve right in and give a great amount of opinions and facts which one surprisingly learns much more.

Maybe, but the problem with the old fellows is that back then source critisicism was not really applied- or in its infancy. And that new interpretations have come forth. I know little of gaul, but if we look at the Danish viking and middle ages where I am an expert (and have myself had no little part in the new understanding), little of what was written 100 years ago has any usefulness. There are many reasons for this and things will get boring if I start rambling. But much has happened in historical scholarship the last century.

If you have access to academic databases like Blackwell, Wiley, and JSTOR, yo can read much on these things.

I do not, I probably could get it, but TBH I am not too keen on Celts. It is my own history I am interested in, IE Denmark-> Germans and Rome.

Really, if you take the Gallic War alone, Caesar does mention the violent warfare between the Aedui and Arverni. This is not a 'hint' at all but a statement of fact.

No it is not, as I have shown above the statement should not be taken at face value, but have source criticism applied to it. I did this in my last post and believe that I exhibited both how one applies S C (the tool of trade of any historian and the only thing distinguishing us from artists and writers of fiction), and that Caesar's statement does not hold up to scrutiny as a statement of fact. If you believed such statements consider that Hitler stated as fact that UK was finished and the war over in 1940. And that Montgomery et al stated as fact that the Germans had only old men and young boys left with which to defend. Find any veteran of Arnhem and ask him about the truth of that statement.
You cannot believe such, for the actual application of Source Criticism to Caesar, see my last post.

In 121 B.C. the Romans defeated, heavily, the Arverni. The power vacuum would have certainly resulted in typical warfare as he Arverni tried to maintain their control of trade and hegemony among the 'lesser' tribes and their allies and dependents. from there the conflict might have started, or it could have achieved impetus much later on. We do not know. We know the Cimbri and Teutone were no friends of the Aedui and Arverni either, but little is said about what went on in Gaul militarily, at this time (one would think that 100,000's of families and people moving through would need food, and the breadbasket was Gaul above all others). But what we do know is these two powers sought supremacy through warfare, and apparently the "many years" of this ongoing war were not going to end anytime soon. Thus Caesar ride in and saves the Gauls from themselves and the Germans.

The crucial thing here is, as you say, We do not know", it is all interpretation and guesswork. And again, you should not take the numbers of the Kêmbroz literally, the numbers given for them in the ancient sources would have comprised an estimated half to third of the population of Germany at this point. Ancient sources always exaggerate enemy nymbers and hide their own losses. In this very thread was mentioned L. C. Sulla's 20-man loss, as an evident example.

If the warfare and losses in Gaul were so bad we would not see a rising urbanisation and trade, quite the opposite. Urbanisation and trade cannot thrive in an environment of strife and violence. Cities are too juicy targets for enemies if there is no strong protection. Now, I do not know much about Gallic history, but I do know that we see an increase in urbanisation and trade. This would be evidence against the dearth of warriors and power vacuum. I also very well know the application of source criticism, I was good at it before I took my degree and it was hammered in further during the years at uni.

So, I persist in saying that we can say nothing of the losses of Gallic warriors on the basis of the sources cited. I also persist especially in saying that Intranetusa is mistaken to claim that Caesar had but to walk in and kick a few old men and starving women and Gaul was his. And lastly I definately persist in claiming that Caivs Ivlivs Caesar deserves praise as one of the great military and political minds of our history.

Power2the1

02-21-2010, 12:56

There are more critcisms of Caesar and classical authors than one can imagine...its everywhere. I do not keep up with roman things of that nature unless it deals directly with the Celts. I fully agree with the view, that you echo, about new interpretations coming to light. I laugh to myself when I see Celtic info from the 19th century; good stuff that is! Let me ask you something so I can gauge your own 'discipline' on historical interpretations: If published material is not modern, yet hold views that are either accepted, or not overturned through new discoveries, do you accept it or give it a skeptical slant? Just curious is all and I am not forcing anyone to subscribe to anything, however, whats interesting to me at least is my old EB1 predecessors in the Celtic area all agreed that from what Caesar said, and did not say (indirect evidence), that the Gauls were worse off against the Romans and Germans due to what warfare/conflict had already been going on for some great length of time between themselves.

I honestly wish there was some kind of effort to publish a nice article on the Celts/Gauls by those who have more time than I do to do so.

Macilrille

02-21-2010, 13:21

:2thumbsup:

I treat all sources and interpretations of sources the same. I filter them through my own critical eye and test them as much as I am able to against other sources and information. that is, after all, what I was brainwashed to do at uni- and did already ;-)

At the H-War mailing list there was just (is still in fact) a discussion on how to treat david Irvine's work as Unis in Australia directly downgrade students who quote him no matter what they quote him on. Now David irvine is a Holocaust denier and revisionist and as such I spit upon him and refuse to believe that part of his work, but some of his earlier stuff is actually good scholarship, so where it has nothing to do with revisionism and Holocaust denial, it is usable. Everything must always be reviewed by the critical eye of the scholar before he uses it. Nothing accepted at face value or taken for granted.

As for Celts, they do not hold much interest for me; they got third place in the competetion with Germans and Romans for power in N Europe. All very simplified off course. Thing is, for some reason it is Germans and Rome that interests me- perhaps because the merger of those two made Europe of today, perhaps because I am a war-liking psycho, perhaps because the Celts lost, perhaps because I am a "German", I dunno.

An in-depth analysis of Gallic history with all known evidence taken into account would be interesting though. I might read that as Celts did have a huge impact on Germans and was conquered by one of my favorite Romans.

Intranetusa

02-22-2010, 05:10

I am, to say the least, very interested in your sources for this?

I am also a bit puzzled at how everybody here inevitably claims that it whenever one of Rome's famous victories gets mentioned they always ascribe it not to skill, organisation and training, but always to manpower, as if Rome was a sort of antique version of 1940 USSR.
Throughout the late Republic, from the Grachii and on to the early empire manpower was always a great problem for Romans in raising armies. In his volumnious study of Roman manpower that I have mentioned several times, Brunt concludes:

1) In the 2nd Punic War Rome lost 20- 25% of its manpower. This means that the argument that Rome only defeated mighty Macedonia because mighty Macedonia had been involved in centuries of warfare and intercinene strife, depleting its manpower is moot. With 25% of its men of fighting age dead, Rome was at least as depleted as Macedonia, nor were the men fighting the 2nd Macedonian re-enlisted veterans (Evocatii), according to Brunt, only one legion consisted of such men.

2) At the time of The Civil Wars, manpower was again a problem after 2-3 generations of bloody wars and civil wars, and many legions were quite low on manpower. Much like, if not as bad (I do not have Brunt to hand, so I do not remember the actual numbers), the German "Shadow Dvisions" of late WWII. Before embarking on his conquest of Gaul, Caivs Ivlivs raised one of his legions from Cisalpine Gauls who were not even citizens and retroactively gave them citizenship- thus causing an uproar amongst the Boni back home. However, the men were just not available for his army, so he had to find other solutions. Again, Rome had suffered some very- very bloody defeats (amongst it Arausio, Rome's greatest defeat ever), then been involved in the bloody Social and Civil Wars. It is no coincidence that Germanicus found Legions revolting because the men were dissatisfied with long service. There simply were few Italian men left to draft.

Further, I know of no evidence, written ancient or archeological that says that Gaul was "exhausted by civil war", that their "good warriors were dead", nor that "they were starving to death". AFAIK Gaul was thriving as the Celtic Iron Age drew to a close, the mere name of that period sort of hints that Celts were economically and culturally dominant in Europe N of the Alps. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary and enlighten me. But I fail to see that Gaul would have been more exhausted than Italy. And before you talk of civil strife within Gaul, remember that amobngst Celts and Germans low-level civil strife was the norm. Antropologically/socialogically speaking such is the consequence of the early state and its evolution, but to the northern barbarians it was a matter of honour and resources, and a way of life.

So, as I see it, it was hardly because Caesar went for an exhausted and depleted Gaul that he won, rather the opposite. In fact Caesar was desperate for riches, why would he go for a devastated area devoid of people (to till the land and create income and to be sold as slaves) and wealth? When he was through with Gaul it was depleted, but certainly not before.

IMO Caesar was great because he thought out of the box of traditional Roman thinking and defeated all comers; Barbarian War Host, guerrilla and a supposedly equal opponent raising Roman, Spanish and N. African style Roman armies against him (do not forget Rome believed Pompey to be one of their best commanders who needed but stamp his foot and legions would spring up- further, he was likely more rich than Crassus after his conquests in the very wealthy east). So no matter who he fought, he adapted and overcame them. He also had a grand vision for his politics in Rome, apparently envisioning more integration, less segregation and thus a strengthening of Rome's Empire. IMO these things make him great, just like the exact same skills made Alexander great; defeating all comers no matter the nature of their armies/tactic, and possessing a vision for their realms.

Rome was a settled agrarian culture that was able to support large populations – increasing their population after warfare wasn't too difficult. This is in contrast to the Gallic nations. Furthermore, the Gallic civil wars were many decades to centuries of prolonged warfare. The Roman war with other nations and civil wars only lasted a few generations.

The Romans emerged from the 2nd Punic War bloodied, but they gained plenty of land, wealth and former territories of Carthage. The Romans also always had a large population to begin with.
By the time the 3rd Macedonian War rolled around 5 decades later, Rome had pretty much recovered much of their strength.

So yes, the Romans took a large populaton hit. But they also had a large base population and could rebound quickly. IMO, the Roman conquest of Macedon was not as much of a pushover as Caear's conquest of Vercingetorix. Nonetheless, Macedon also had been in constant warfare for centuries with the Greeks, sucessor states, etc. I think the conquest of Macedonia as a far greater achievement than the conquest of Vercingetorix's Avernai.

My argument isn't towards Rome in general, but against Caesar, who I think is entirely overrated.

Caesar had 2 failed invasions of Germany, 2 failed invasions of Britain. His conquest of Gaul is put to shame by far greater Roman wars that took place on a more leveled playing field.

By the time Caesar came rolling around, many of the Gallic kingdoms had allied themselves with the Romans. The rest who opposed him stood little chance anyways.
Gaul by Caesar's time was already almost under Roman control. Vercingetroix had to rebel against the nobles in his own kingdom so he could raise an army against Rome. The Romans at the time criticized Caesar for mounting an expensive and senseless Gallic campaign since most of Gaul paid tribute to Rome, and the Gauls were becoming Romanized anyways.

Victory or not, Caesar's decision to destroy the last remaining tribes that resisted was more like euthanizing road kill that was already dying...not some grand conquest.

Mulceber

02-22-2010, 09:07

The Romans emerged from the 2nd Punic War bloodied, but they gained plenty of land, wealth and former territories of Carthage.

None of which translate to a larger body of citizens. More people under your command? Yes. More citizens? No.

The Romans also always had a large population to begin with.

For a classical society in which half the troops are being provided by one city (the other half being provided by the Italian Allies), a couple hundred thousand deaths is A LOT. Rome did have a large population, but I have no doubt that the frequent and bloody wars in which they were involved were making it progressively more difficult to supply troops.

Caesar had 2 failed invasions of Germany, 2 failed invasions of Britain.

Those weren't failures. I think you misunderstand the purpose of those invasions: they weren't designed to conquer Germany or Britain, they were designed to send messages to the Germani and the Britanni to stay out of Gallic affairs and stop giving aid to the enemy. Why do you think Caesar built that bridge over the Rhine, crossed it, and marched around with his army a bit, not really fighting anyone and then marched back over the bridge and destroyed it? He wasn't attempting to conquer, but to persuade allies of the Gauls that they didn't want to get involved. And in that he succeeded eminently.

Victory or not, Caesar's decision to destroy the last remaining tribes that resisted was more like euthanizing road kill that was already dying...not some grand conquest.

No...by the time of the Vercingetorix revolt, virtually all (if not all) of Rome's Gallic allies had turned on her and Caesar was fighting the entire Gallic nation.

The Romans at the time criticized Caesar for mounting an expensive and senseless Gallic campaign since most of Gaul paid tribute to Rome, and the Gauls were becoming Romanized anyways.

They criticized Caesar because most of them were aware that he had started that war and Rome traditionally liked to have some pretext for war. -M

Parallel Pain

02-22-2010, 10:01

If the warfare and losses in Gaul were so bad we would not see a rising urbanisation and trade, quite the opposite. Urbanisation and trade cannot thrive in an environment of strife and violence. Cities are too juicy targets for enemies if there is no strong protection. Now, I do not know much about Gallic history, but I do know that we see an increase in urbanisation and trade. This would be evidence against the dearth of warriors and power vacuum. I also very well know the application of source criticism, I was good at it before I took my degree and it was hammered in further during the years at uni.

Sorry I have to disagree with this. The city walls are great protection against an enemy army. Trade goods are a necessity of war.

During prolonged period of war, like say over a century of constant warfare, someone somewhere down the line would realize that centralizing power would allow them to mobilize more troops which means they have a higher chance of winning. Cities aid in administration, which increases centralization. Warfare requires improving travel/communication infrastructure for troops/information travel, which both increases centralization and is made better by a centralized government. This also allows merchants to travel around better. Governments also need food to feed troops, iron to make weapons and armors for troops, and money to pay troops. What better way to get these stuff than making merchants do it? Even during times of Total War warring nations could agree not hindering merchants of any party unless they were caught as spies. This is because trade is paying everyone, and it would hurt one's own nation more to blockade and stop trade than increase its chance of victory over rivals.

During these periods urbanization would also increase. Against a squad of 10 pillaging soldiers a farming family is just prey. But what about 10 farming families? What about 30 gathered together in a small village with pallisades around it? What about a citiy with thousands of families and a huge wall? The people would gather together for mutual protection. They would also take advantage of trading/administrative opportunities to go to towns and cities, further increasing urbanization.

I bring you the Chinese Spring and Autumn/Warring States period and the Japanese Sengoku Jidai, both of which could be classified as "Total War"

Now I am not saying that's what happened in Gaul. I am saying you can't say because there was an increase in urbanization and trade it is impossible for the period to have been during or immediately after a period of extremely bloody conflict and civil strife. I think what determines whether the "civil wars" leads to "ruralization" and "power vacuum" leads to "power sharing", or if they lead to "urbanization" and "centralization of power (locally)" is population number. Whether or not during this time of conflict there has been enough babies being born to replace the ones dying of violence, famine, and disease which all inevitablly increase during such periods. If the answer is yes, or that there is more than enough and population's actually increasing (centralization+ urbanization = better irrigation/agricultural project = increase food output = increase in population) then prolonged periods of war leads to urbanization and centralization.

However I do have to agree that such a long period of warfare would have created a large number of fighting professionals and maintained or even increased that number compaired to previous. Constant warfare lasting multiple generations would not have decreased this number (at this percentage wise) in general but increased it. The only time when it would decrease would be after a certain devastating battle/campaign/war that is part of the general period. And that number would recover (though it would take time).

In the end what made the difference I believe (besides Caesar's personal genius) was that the Celtic military AFAIK comprised of a core and relatively small number of professional fighting elites backed by large number of seasonal untrained levies. This was the system during many age and place in the far east as well. The bad side being of course the untrained farmer levies are unreliable, their quality varied greatly, lower morale, seasonal campaigning, and depending greatly on the cores of elites for inspiration. Facing these the Romans had a professional conscript force with at least basic training, better logistical organization, year round (in theory) campaigning ability, and a heck of a lot of other edges over the former kind of military.

@Intranetusa
I have to say that is not the best point to argue against Caesar. It has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread that the Gallic Wars are not Caesar's only triumph. He did pretty much completely flatten all opposition in the Civil Wars.
Also he killing off all remaining resistence has nothing to do with military ability. Was it cruel? Sure. But it was a more or less exceptable practice. And it would only darken his reputation as a conqueror, not as a military genius.

Macilrille

02-22-2010, 10:46

Your argument seems twofold, first the population issue.

Rome was a settled agrarian culture that was able to support large populations – increasing their population after warfare wasn't too difficult. This is in contrast to the Gallic nations. Furthermore, the Gallic civil wars were many decades to centuries of prolonged warfare. The Roman war with other nations and civil wars only lasted a few generations.

The Romans emerged from the 2nd Punic War bloodied, but they gained plenty of land, wealth and former territories of Carthage. The Romans also always had a large population to begin with.
By the time the 3rd Macedonian War rolled around 5 decades later, Rome had pretty much recovered much of their strength.

So yes, the Romans took a large populaton hit. But they also had a large base population and could rebound quickly. IMO, the Roman conquest of Macedon was not as much of a pushover as Caear's conquest of Vercingetorix. Nonetheless, Macedon also had been in constant warfare for centuries with the Greeks, sucessor states, etc. I think the conquest of Macedonia as a far greater achievement than the conquest of Vercingetorix's Avernai.

Now, I did not in fact talk only of the 2nd Punic War- 2nd Macedonian War as I thought was evident in mentioning Arausio. In fact manpower was a persistent problem for Rome from the 2nd Punic War onwards. It is evident in Brunt's 800+ pages analysis "Italian Manpower", and his shorter "Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic" where he summs up and elaborates. It also permeates all our ancient sources and even the most basic high school textbook on Roman history mentions it. Perhaps you believe the Romans to win all their wars with few losses, but such was not the case. Look up Quintus Pompeius, Gaius Hostilius Mancinus, Gnaeus Papirius Carbo and Quintus Servilius Caepio should you think so. And that is merely a short list.

Fact is, Rome was always short on manpower as they started to expand, even Marius' reforms did not alleviate this in the long run. Granting citizenship to all Italy did slightly, but only for a while, for Italy too, was bled white. It is difficult indeed to replenish your manpower when all your free farmers have died in war, their farms been sold and their land is now tilled by slaves of some patrician's Latifundie. That is basically what happened.
How can you not acknowledge this when it is commonly acknowledged to be one of the major causes for the fall of the Republic?

Instead you repeat the argument that there was "centuries of bloody warfare" in Gaul. More bloody than Rome's? More bloody than anywhere around the Med till the Romans enforced Pax Romana for that matter?
What are your sources for this? P2T1 has already mentioned sources that I by and large dismissed, can you bring new ones to light? It is hard to lend credibility to blanket statements with no sources.
As I also mentioned earlier, low-level warfare was an integral fact of life for the northern barbarians. Every account we have of the Germans for example, mentions it, and it did not seem to hinder their ability to wage war on their neighbours. Quite the contrary; it kept their warriors lean and mean. So warfare was an integral part of the way of life for Gauls and Germans, we know this. How was the last century more bloody than the preceeding ones? And how more bloody than Rome's and for that matter Germany's? And if this was so, why do we see an increase in urbanisation?

Mulceber has already adressed your alleged failed invasions of Germany and Britain. No Roman was stupid enough to launch any invasion anywhere with an eye on conquest without their logistical base firmly secure and ample supply for the armies ready. All our sources and all analysis shows this, Caesar would not have invaded either without it. So Mulceber is right, Caesar was merely making demonstrations, and successfully so. It even secured him German allies, not a bad thing, and typical Roman to keep a buffer between them and their enemies.

You add no new arguments to P2T1'a, and he cited sources, so please have a look above for me refutation of the statement that Vercingetorix had to summon the poor and needy only. There is plenty of evidence that other nobles were also rebelling. But such is merely natural in such a situation. Some nobles will see the advantage of allying themselves with Rome, other in resisting it. For comparison, look at the events of A.D. 9; before he annihilated Varus, Arminus held/attended a feast/meeting of Cherusci nobles. Some were pro-Roman (Segestes and his faction), some were pro-rebel. In fact Arminus' brother Flavius kept faith with Rome all through the campaigns of Germanicus, and his uncle Ingiumerus only joined late. In germanicus' campaign too, it is seen how Arminus rouse the tribes to battle, high and low. So if you compare the rebel leaders, their situation is remarkably similar. Both face resistance from other nobles, but also support. I bet you if we look (could look) at other Roman wars you would se pro- and anti-Romans in them; Divide and conquer...

No, I maintain that Caesar was a great general as he succeeded in forming an army that was absolutely and almost fanatically loyal to him, and with it to defeat:
Barbarian War-host
Guerrilla in rough terrain with little infrastructure
A Roman army under an acknowledges great general (by his peers, Pompeius)
Roman armies with N African and Iberian flavour, both had proven difficult to others commanders.

Further he was superb in selecting junior officers, another sign of a great commander.

He also had a vision for Rome and its empire, but that is more the political arena.

To me, Caesar was a great commander and you will have to come up with some more substantial evidence than unsupported statements to convince me otherwise. Sorry, and sorry too if I seem arrogant. That is by no means the intension.

Power2the1

02-22-2010, 14:22

However I do have to agree that such a long period of warfare would have created a large number of fighting professionals and maintained or even increased that number compaired to previous. Constant warfare lasting multiple generations would not have decreased this number (at this percentage wise) in general but increased it. The only time when it would decrease would be after a certain devastating battle/campaign/war that is part of the general period. And that number would recover (though it would take time).

In the end what made the difference I believe (besides Caesar's personal genius) was that the Celtic military AFAIK comprised of a core and relatively small number of professional fighting elites backed by large number of seasonal untrained levies. This was the system during many age and place in the far east as well. The bad side being of course the untrained farmer levies are unreliable, their quality varied greatly, lower morale, seasonal campaigning, and depending greatly on the cores of elites for inspiration. Facing these the Romans had a professional conscript force with at least basic training, better logistical organization, year round (in theory) campaigning ability, and a heck of a lot of other edges over the former kind of military.

Well said. I do see where you are coming from, however, I am in slight disagreement with the statement of prolonged war would equate to more fighting professional warriors. Its undisputed that the Gauls at this time were under the fist of a small group of powerful nobles within their respective state or tribe. When the Arverni and Aedui go to war, certainly the main deaths would be from this circle of professionals (Marines go ashore to engage the enemy and people die, its not to be guys still on the ship becoming casualties). These professionals were the main ones soaking up the losses and if they did levy a host of other non professionals, they would have soaked up the casualties too. Loss of life would be the major effect of this warfare. Gauls were not big on extending the war to non combatants generally, nor demolishing and rampaging everything in their path, and I know for a fact that theres no sign of large scale burning and destruction in the archaeological record at this time. Replacement of skilled and professional warriors cannot sustain casualties when you are already a small group to begin with and waiting 16 years for a son of a noble to grow up learn the ropes is too long to reinforce your ranks. The only logical thing to do is go and help where you may be weak in numbers, such as the Germans, to supplement your already worn out forces. When you look at ancient warfare, mercs are generally not hired in if you have all the means to get the job done and achieve you goals without spending tons of money on those mercs. They are hired to bolster you forces and/or replace your losses, or even tip the numbers of warriors in your favor.

Regardless, your overall premise is what I agree with as it jives with what is known overall in publications about the Celts and the Gallic War.

No it is not, as I have shown above the statement should not be taken at face value, but have source criticism applied to it. I did this in my last post and believe that I exhibited both how one applies S C (the tool of trade of any historian and the only thing distinguishing us from artists and writers of fiction), and that Caesar's statement does not hold up to scrutiny as a statement of fact. If you believed such statements consider that Hitler stated as fact that UK was finished and the war over in 1940. And that Montgomery et al stated as fact that the Germans had only old men and young boys left with which to defend. Find any veteran of Arnhem and ask him about the truth of that statement.
You cannot believe such, for the actual application of Source Criticism to Caesar, see my last post.

P2T1 has already mentioned sources that I by and large dismissed

Which is fine, but I must ask you for sources that counter or refute all of this in the context of the Gallic War.

Of all the source criticisms I have ever read about Caesar and the Gallic War (I hate Caesar and equate him with the likes of Hitler and Stalin in the similar methods of war, so I love seeing him get ripped), and thing pertinent to this topic, none of these reviews have ever denied this event, much less mentioned the Aedui v. Arverni warfare as being something other than what it is.

EDIT: It should also be said that Gaul was a very divided place. Theres mention of pro and anti Roman factions within the tribe, and Caesar (or was is Posidonius?) mentioned that these divisions go much deeper that political circles, but go down to clans and families as well. I doubt that every warrior in Gaul was pro Roman, but when you look at how little resistance Caesar received initially, you can tell that the Gallic aristocracy all over were not exactly hostile to Romans right at the start, especially as its thought that the upper class was largely Romanized. Thus, it was years into the campaign before serious resistance became realized. One could argue it was a manner of who do you want as your master?: The backstabbing power hungry Roman, or the backstabbing power hungry Gaul.

mrjade06

02-22-2010, 15:56

a few quick thoughts on this. I personally believe that Rome had VERY few great leaders. Their remarkable military success was brought about by their far superior weaponry, logistics, training, discipline, and tactics which were essentially unmatched at that time and place in the world. In most modern armies, the most crucial element outside of logistics for a particular nation's success is not the general leading it, but instead the junior officers and NCOs leading it. These were/are the most respected, experienced men in the military who lead at the front rather than plan grand tactics from the rear. In fact due to the Iraq/Afghanistan war, the US military has grave concerns over the turnover of men who would make NCO if they reupped, and NCOs leaving the service, thus the average NCO in the US military today has a lot less service time in the military compared to 10 years ago. Now why do I bring this up you ask? The Romans also had a system of Junior officers and NCOs, and these men were usually hardened veterans with years of experience and training...thus by the time Caesar faced Gaul, it wasnt even close to a fair fight. This wasn't due to any tactical brilliance on Caesar's part (although there was some no doubt), but due to military machine that Rome had created. The Gauls had vast amounts of levies and great individual warriors, but the romans had a well drilled, well supplied military machine led by experienced and grizzled veteran NCOs and JOs from the front that fought as a unit rather than as individuals. NUMBERS mean NOTHING in warfare, however training and leadership from the front means EVERYTHING. A good more modern example of this would be the South's fight against the North in the American Civil war. While certain Southern leaders such as Lee and Jackson stand out were undoubtedly brilliant, the overall argument which I made as part of my graduate thesis was that the South had the majority of the experienced and trained NCOs and Junior officers at the start of the war, which helped lead to many of the early victory's of the South, as the two army's average soldier had about the same background and training, and the casualty figures for many of the battles were about the same. Which leads to my next point...

For the most part, Generals throughout history receive far too much of the credit for victories, and all the blame as well. Alexander was a brillant military leader no doubt, but you also must understand that his military was unrivaled in training, tactics, and leadership compared to those of his opponents. Therefore, in my book, Caesar was a brilliant politician, a great opportunist, and leader of an unrivaled and unparalleled military machine. Must other 'great' Roman generals were much the same. The notable exceptions in my book may be Scipio and Marius. However if we want to talk about the ONE truly great Roman general who to me stands out above all generals in history, although some may say calling him Roman may be a bit of a stretch, we must talk about Flavius Belisarius. He managed to make Justinian out to be a great emperor, reconquering much of the Roman empire with ZERO logistics, no hope of resupply or support, being badly outnumbered, and with a military machine which had passed its zenith and was equaled by many of his opponents. He won victory after victory against all comers, and I don't believe there is a general in history and especially in the Roman Empire who equals him in sheer tactical brilliance, and being able to essentially create victory where there should have been statistically no chance.

I would also say that Quintus Sertorius was a far above average Roman leader...and Macilrille if you would like sources on the things you ask for I would gladly PM you them when I get back to the states as I have many many many. Caesar...great leader, politician, opportunist even visionary YES, a General? Eh not so much. He was a product of the machine, not the creator...

Mulceber

02-22-2010, 17:14

@ MrJade06 - Just wanted to point out that at the start of the Gallic war, much of Caesar's army was raw recruits - as Proconsul of Gaul he was given 2 legions, and then he gave citizenship to and conscripted 2 more legions. So half his army was inexperienced. I imagine that his junior officers had experience, but probably not a whole lot - although I could be wrong. So Rome's war machine going into the Gallic war wasn't quite as experienced as you portray. Also, with regard to the claim that Caesar just had great logistics behind him, I'd like to contest that. Many modern analyses of Pompeius argue that he wasn't really a great tactician, but instead had experience and a great eye for logistics. In other words, he is someone just like what you describe. Yet he was decisively defeated by Caesar. There were also plenty of Roman commanders of Caesar's era who had that same logistical system behind them and failed miserably (Crassus leaps to mind). So I think we should give Caesar more credit for tactical skill. -M

mrjade06

02-22-2010, 18:57

@ Mulceber:

Perhaps I went a little too far in tearing down what I like to call "the myth of Caesar". Let me explain. Caesar was a good leader...extremely inspirational...he was a competent commander, rarely made tactical mistakes, but he DID lose battles. In fact I'm VERY glad you brought up Pompey. Pompey by all rights had Caesar cornered, trapped, starving, and demoralized. In fact if he was able to do what he wanted it is extremely likely that Caesar WOULDNT have defeated Pompey Magnus. Pompey had already defeated Caesar at Dyrrhachium, and although he didn't perhaps exploit this victory as much as he could have, had Caesar right where he wanted him. However the Senate wanted a great, glorious, crushing victory over Caesar, and didnt like the decidedly (in their opinion) inglorious tactics of Pompey and forced him to do something he did not want to do. Therefore he was forced into a disadvantageous attack against Caesar's far more experienced fighting force...and well I'm sure you know the rest.

For some odd reason we in Western culture have turned Caesar into a great commander, and legendary beloved figure, perhaps it stems from the time of Rome itself, and Caesar being very popular with the people, perhaps from Shakespeare's play. I don't know. What I do know is that in Caesar's case, the myth is far greater than the man himself, although no doubt Caesar was a very great man. Caesar was a decent good general yes, but when compared to others throughout time? No.

As for Crassus...well I think what happened to him could have happened to nearly any Roman leader. Arrogance and hubris, combined with an enemy operating on its own soil, using different tactics and weapons than what the Romans were accustomed to facing, against a well equipped, trained, and led picked force of elite soldiers using asymmetric warfare and especially with false intelligence supplied about an enemy's disposition=disaster. This could have easily happened to Caesar as well, although Crassus was a bit of a fool.

As for Caesars original army...yes some or even many may have been raw recruits...but they were still trained and led by experienced NCO's and junior officers...who are the backbone of any good army. And that Roman training was to put it lightly, brutal, and incredibly effective. Properly led, freshly trained Roman soldiers (at this point in history) using their tactics could defeat 90% of their opponents easily in a stand-up battle of annihilation. You must remember, that using asymmetrical guerrilla tactics, Vercingetorix defeated Caesar on a number of occasions, and only whe he was caught in Alesia, and forced to give Caesar the decisive battle he so desired, was Caesar able to defeat him.

Mulceber

02-22-2010, 19:25

For some odd reason we in Western culture have turned Caesar into a great commander, and legendary beloved figure, perhaps it stems from the time of Rome itself, and Caesar being very popular with the people, perhaps from Shakespeare's play. I don't know. What I do know is that in Caesar's case, the myth is far greater than the man himself, although no doubt Caesar was a very great man. Caesar was a decent good general yes, but when compared to others throughout time? No.

I think I can answer that. As far as I'm concerned, Caesar was a brilliant politician, a brilliant orator (although we don't have his speeches, just attestations by Cicero), a very good strategist, a very good writer and an above-average general. I think the reason Caesar tends to receive so much admiration (and the reason I admire him) is because of the Civil War: Caesar was given a choice to either give up arms and surrender himself to the Senate or fight to save his own political career. This is something that was certainly very selfish, condemning thousands of men to death to save his political career. But there's something that I think people admire in that. I think there's a part of every person that wishes they could just throw off their obligations and do what they want. As Christian Meier puts it in his book, "...ultimately our susceptibility to Caesar's greatness derives from an ideal that we all secretly cherish - the ideal of self-sufficiency, of being able to act as we wish and to be what we choose to be" (p. 483). Caesar was an individual in the truest sense of the word. I think that's why he has been romanticized by history.

As for Crassus...well I think what happened to him could have happened to nearly any Roman leader. Arrogance and hubris, combined with an enemy operating on its own soil, using different tactics and weapons than what the Romans were accustomed to facing, against a well equipped, trained, and led picked force of elite soldiers using asymmetric warfare and especially with false intelligence supplied about an enemy's disposition=disaster. This could have easily happened to Caesar as well, although Crassus was a bit of a fool.

I think Plutarch's point is appropriate here: Crassus thought that extreme wealth equaled greatness. He was wrong.

As for Caesars original army...yes some or even many may have been raw recruits...but they were still trained and led by experienced NCO's and junior officers...who are the backbone of any good army. And that Roman training was to put it lightly, brutal, and incredibly effective. Properly led, freshly trained Roman soldiers (at this point in history) using their tactics could defeat 90% of their opponents easily in a stand-up battle of annihilation. You must remember, that using asymmetrical guerrilla tactics, Vercingetorix defeated Caesar on a number of occasions, and only whe he was caught in Alesia, and forced to give Caesar the decisive battle he so desired, was Caesar able to defeat him.

A fair point, although the only battle that I know of in which Caesar was actually in command against Vercingetorix in which he lost was Gergovia. I think the best way to put it is that as a tactician, Caesar was competent, maybe slightly above average, but it was in strategy (ie. what you do between battles, where you decide to attack, etc.) where he really shines. It was once said of Hannibal that he knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it. Caesar was average or slightly above average at gaining victories, but he was extremely good at using them. -M

DionCaesar

02-22-2010, 19:40

It seems like this has become a discussion solely about Caesar. The question has shifted from 'Who's the greatest Roman general' to 'Is Caesar a hero or not'?
If you want to answer the original question, you shouldn't only focus on Jvlivs Caesar, but on the entire Roman timeframe. You'll see a quantity of Roman generals who all conquered large area's and defeated many enemies. They rose to power each in their own way, either climbing the military ladder or pursuing a political career. Pompey, for example, wasn't involved with politics until he and Sulla returned to Rome. Generals like Marius got to lead an army after becoming consul.
Another thing which has to be taken into consideration, is the fact that it was easier to obtain glory in certain periods of time than in others. Saving the empire from disaster makes more of an impression than conquering Britain while Roma itself is save.
Thirdly, we must think how the people who lived at the time of the person we discuss thought of him, and how he got them to think of him like that. Some commanders were very skillful in gaining positive public opinion. I think this is part of being commander too, getting the loyalty of both soldiers and citizens.
Now that I've made this clear, I think it's time to give my personal opinion.

Without any doubt, the greatest Roman commander there has ever been, is Gaivs Jvlivs Caesar. I have too many reasons for this, but I'll mention only a few.
First of all, his road to getting commander is unseen and spectacular. Uniting to arch rivals which happened to be the two most powerful men of Roma, is a remarkable achievement.
Caesar was apparently extremely charismatic. Holding back 370.000 Helvetii (of which approx. 1/4th men) with only 1 legion is an epic deed. Using the engineering skills which the Roman army was famous about in the best possible way, he bought himself time to lead his other legions (through the Alps) to the Rhône, where he defeated the entire migration. The excuses he uses are both original and believable, at least to the people of his time.
It was this ability of thinking of excuses that allowed him to march deep into Gaul, and causing conflicts between tribes, which effectively divided them. Why would you fight them all at once, when you can divide them and 'remove' them separately? This is, in my opinion, part of being a successful commander too.
To make a long story short, he conquered all of Gaul, defeated the fearsome German warlord Ariovistus, the British Cassivelaunos, great Gauls like Vercingetorix and Dumnorix, using his own, unseen methods. The most special about this is that he managed to keep the Roman people behind him, and letting them know what he was doing. Despite that, the senate didn't trust him so ran off, like we all know.

Caesar was famous for never using large fleets, except for transport. Through bravery and personal motivation, he managed to lead his demotivated and exhausted legions to victory in Greece, defeating an equally equipped army of fellow Romans. Following was his, also famous, clemency, with which he reassured the Roman people that he had the best intentions. After this he conquered Egypt, large parts of Africa, Pontus and Spain. He knew exactly when he had to be where, and achieved these victories by taking risks no other general dared to take. They did sometimes go wrong, but it is typical for Caesar that he wasn't blamed personally. In the end, he brought peace to the Roman world and planned a Dacian and Parthian campaign, when he was assassinated. If that hadn't happened, he might as well have conquered the above mentioned territories as well, reassuring that he deserves the title of Greatest Roman Commander Ever.

As others also said, this is only my opinion, and I wrote this way quicker than I wanted to, but as I am short of time at the moment, I didn't get to improve my story and arguments.

Vale

mrjade06

02-22-2010, 20:52

DionCaesar,

You say,

Caesar was apparently extremely charismatic. Holding back 370.000 Helvetii (of which approx. 1/4th men) with only 1 legion is an epic deed. Using the engineering skills which the Roman army was famous about in the best possible way, he bought himself time to lead his other legions (through the Alps) to the Rhône, where he defeated the entire migration. The excuses he uses are both original and believable, at least to the people of his time.

The 370,000 Helvetii many historians believe today was a gross form of exageration at best...and even then only 100,000 were of fighting age...at any rate most modern historians believe that there were only around 110,000 Helvetii, and only 15,000 or so were actual fighters, and that the Helvetii were actually outnumbered in the battle.

You'll see a quantity of Roman generals who all conquered large area's and defeated many enemies. They rose to power each in their own way, either climbing the military ladder or pursuing a political career. Pompey, for example, wasn't involved with politics until he and Sulla returned to Rome. Generals like Marius got to lead an army after becoming consul.
Another thing which has to be taken into consideration, is the fact that it was easier to obtain glory in certain periods of time than in others. Saving the empire from disaster makes more of an impression than conquering Britain while Roma itself is save.
Thirdly, we must think how the people who lived at the time of the person we discuss thought of him, and how he got them to think of him like that. Some commanders were very skillful in gaining positive public opinion. I think this is part of being commander too, getting the loyalty of both soldiers and citizens.

Here you reinforce my point and I totally agree with you. Caesar was a product of the superior Roman military, not the other way around. He was an incredibly skilled politician and orator as was mentioned above, however as a general he had his fair share of defeats and reverses. He had many many great qualities as a great politician, an extremely decisive shrewd leader, tremendous public speaker, was no doubt incredibly smart, but as I've mentioned in a previous post Pompey by all rights SHOULD have and WOULD have defeated Caesar if he wasnt forced into a foolhardy plan by the Senate. Caesar no doubt was a great man, but your post is just dripping of pure Caesarian propaganda that was produced at the time. Yes Caesar was indeed one of the greatest, and most brilliant men of Rome, but as I have said...the myth of Caesar is far greater than the man himself. Caesar was a solid, good general who rarely made mistakes, and was fortunate to have the finest army of the day at his back at the time. To say Caesar was the greatest general Rome ever had is to say Rome had no great generals. Caesar was a great man no doubt, but his ability as a general has been over inflated no doubt like other famous men/generals such as George Washington, who in reality was an awful general in many respects, however his status is almost legendary here in the United States, while Benedict Arnold, was a far greater commander, but that is not what is remembered about him today...however Caesar is of course a far greater leader than Washington, but both are given far more credit than they deserve).

Now in order to properly ascertain who was the greatest General of Rome, you need to have some honest criteria to go by:
1. Did he face another great general?
2. Was his army superior to his opponent in numbers, tactics, training, experience etc, or were the armies equal?
3. Did his victories bring lasting conquests, or stave off a crushing defeat?
4. Was he faced with tremendous obstacles or odds, and still won where a lesser man wouldn't have?
5. How did he win his battles/wars? Were they through superior tactics, strategy, logistics, training, or a combination of all? Because one can be great one of these but not be a truly overall great General.
6. Was he defeated? And if so was he able to come back from said defeat, learn from it and eventually defeat his opponent?
7. Did he bring revolutionary tactics/equipment/unit type that forever changed the face of warfare?
8. Was Rome losing a war before he became a commander and was able to reverse the tide?

If I were to list a few Generals Rome had who in my honest estimation were far better generals than Caesar, but of FAR less fame:

Flavius Belisarius (who I have argued was only rivaled in some ways by Hannibal, and was a perhaps the greatest general ever to walk this earth)
Flavius Aetius
Quintus Sertorius
Scipio Africanus
Sulla
Marius

There are also a few others I could throw in there, but those are ones who undoubtedly were superior generals to Caesar

mrjade06

02-22-2010, 21:17

Mulceber,

I think Plutarch's point is appropriate here: Crassus thought that extreme wealth equaled greatness. He was wrong.

Plutarch, while a historian, was also very much a Roman propagandist for the Roman Empire, of who Caesar was the founding father. One must be aware of this when they read anything he writes. A lot of what he has written is either outright propaganda, or of doubtful historical accuracy. He had a tendency to skew facts to make them fit.

I think the best way to put it is that as a tactician, Caesar was competent, maybe slightly above average, but it was in strategy (ie. what you do between battles, where you decide to attack, etc.) where he really shines. It was once said of Hannibal that he knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it. Caesar was average or slightly above average at gaining victories, but he was extremely good at using them.

I totally agree with you on the point that he was a slightly above average tactician. Now as for strategy, to be honest the great masters of strategy are rarely remembered today as great generals, with the notable exceptions of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli. To me one of the greatest people in history at strategic warfare was William Pitt, but you rarely hear of him mentioned in the same breath as for example Napoleon. As for Hannibal not knowing how to use a victory, that is incredibly debatable in my opinion. I personally think Hannibal never truly had the opportunity to really exploit a victory. He did what he could with what he had, but with zero support, and being back-stabbed from rival factions in Carthage, he wasnt able to really do too much. Had he gained reinforcements from Hasdrubal, the story might have ended a bit differently. However I digress a bit here, and yes Caesar was a good strategist, but can you really say he was a master strategist? No.

Mulceber

02-22-2010, 21:53

Plutarch, while a historian, was also very much a Roman propagandist for the Roman Empire, of who Caesar was the founding father. One must be aware of this when they read anything he writes. A lot of what he has written is either outright propaganda, or of doubtful historical accuracy. He had a tendency to skew facts to make them fit.

Actually, by Plutarch's time, Caesar wasn't as popular anymore as he was seen as having set the ball rolling for the institution that gave the Romans Caligular, Nero and Domitian. And indeed, from my memory of his life of Caesar he doesn't seem to be wild about him. Perhaps he doesn't totally condemn him, but he doesn't have a high opinion of Caesar's moral character. I agree though that Plutarch can be inaccurate, but I wasn't using him to contradict your statement about Crassus - I was actually agreeing you and using a tidbit from a classical author which would back up your point. -M

mrjade06

02-22-2010, 22:06

Ahhh sorry I was a bit confused by what you were saying at the time. My humble apologies dear Mulceber.

Intranetusa

02-22-2010, 23:17

None of which translate to a larger body of citizens. More people under your command? Yes. More citizens? No.

More farmland, more wealth - those factors lead to an increase in population growth.

For a classical society in which half the troops are being provided by one city (the other half being provided by the Italian Allies), a couple hundred thousand deaths is A LOT. Rome did have a large population, but I have no doubt that the frequent and bloody wars in which they were involved were making it progressively more difficult to supply troops.

I don't doubt Rome lost a good portion of their population. But Rome went to war every few generations, and it was by no means constant. Rome is an agrarian civilization which was able to repopulate their borders rather quickly.

Those weren't failures. I think you misunderstand the purpose of those invasions: they weren't designed to conquer Germany or Britain, they were designed to send messages to the Germani and the Britanni to stay out of Gallic affairs and stop giving aid to the enemy. Why do you think Caesar built that bridge over the Rhine, crossed it, and marched around with his army a bit, not really fighting anyone and then marched back over the bridge and destroyed it? He wasn't attempting to conquer, but to persuade allies of the Gauls that they didn't want to get involved. And in that he succeeded eminently.

Caesar''s first landing in Britain was a complete failure. As for Caesar's 2nd invasion, sure he was able to subdue one of the regional kings. But the long term effects was nill since British kings continued to meddle in the Gallic-Roman wars on the side of the Gauls.

So in regards to Britain, if they were invasions, Caesar failed. If they were just mere power-projection maneuvers, Caesar still failed.

As for the German invasion, you are correct. Caesar didn't actually attempt an invasion. He just built a bridge to show the few German tribes along the Rhine that he could easily cross the river.

No...by the time of the Vercingetorix revolt, virtually all (if not all) of Rome's Gallic allies had turned on her and Caesar was fighting the entire Gallic nation.
Yes, and by the time they united against Rome, wasn't it far too late? By Caesar's time, it was the mid 1st century CE. Rome's population had already reached over 5 million. Rome was already the only major power left in the western Mediterranean.
Rome at this point had far more resources than all of Gaul combined. Their ability to make war would've thus been far greater than anything Vercingetorix had.

Like I said, it was entirely an asymmetrical war.

They criticized Caesar because most of them were aware that he had started that war and Rome traditionally liked to have some pretext for war. -M

Or they criticized Caesar for starting something rather senseless and using troops and resources to hasten what was inevitable anyways.

Intranetusa

02-22-2010, 23:41

@Intranetusa
I have to say that is not the best point to argue against Caesar. It has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread that the Gallic Wars are not Caesar's only triumph. He did pretty much completely flatten all opposition in the Civil Wars.
Also he killing off all remaining resistence has nothing to do with military ability. Was it cruel? Sure. But it was a more or less exceptable practice. And it would only darken his reputation as a conqueror, not as a military genius.

I agree. But why don't we ever learn about Caesar's other battles as opposed to the Gallic Wars?

IMO, the Gallic Wars are one of the least significant achievements of Caesar. It was an asymmetrical war and a total pushover.

Probably the main reason why it's so popular is because Caesar wrote a book about it.

Your argument seems twofold, first the population issue.Now, I did not in fact talk only of the 2nd Punic War- 2nd Macedonian War as I thought was evident in mentioning Arausio. In fact manpower was a persistent problem for Rome from the 2nd Punic War onwards. It is evident in Brunt's 800+ pages analysis "Italian Manpower", and his shorter "Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic" where he summs up and elaborates. It also permeates all our ancient sources and even the most basic high school textbook on Roman history mentions it. Perhaps you believe the Romans to win all their wars with few losses, but such was not the case. Look up Quintus Pompeius, Gaius Hostilius Mancinus, Gnaeus Papirius Carbo and Quintus Servilius Caepio should you think so. And that is merely a short list.

Sure, Rome was short on manpower for their well trained, well equipped soldiers. But how many well trained, well equipped soldiers did Vercingetorix have - as opposed to how many of them were barely trained, poorly equipped levies?

I'm sure Rome could have organized a giant levy army of all able bodied males if the situation was dire enough.

I'd say the population issue is relative...Rome may have been short on manpower, but so was everyone else they fought...and probably Rome's enemies to a greater degree.

Fact is, Rome was always short on manpower as they started to expand, even Marius' reforms did not alleviate this in the long run. Granting citizenship to all Italy did slightly, but only for a while, for Italy too, was bled white. It is difficult indeed to replenish your manpower when all your free farmers have died in war, their farms been sold and their land is now tilled by slaves of some patrician's Latifundie. That is basically what happened. How can you not acknowledge this when it is commonly acknowledged to be one of the major causes for the fall of the Republic?

I think you're oversimplifying latifunads and exaggerating the population issue in relations to it.

The rise of latifundas is more attributable to the redistribution of conquered lands, rather than farmers dying in war. Rome's
overall population numbered in the tens of millions by Caesar's time...there would not have been any real shortage of manpower to work the farms. Wealthy individuals just found it cheaper to use slaves for giant plantations...and the smaller farmers could not compete and were driven to poverty.

How many people died in the brief civil wars before Caesar's time? They were a drop in the bucket compared to Rome's total population and after taking into consideration how fast Rome's population rebounded.

Instead you repeat the argument that there was "centuries of bloody warfare" in Gaul. More bloody than Rome's? More bloody than anywhere around the Med till the Romans enforced Pax Romana for that matter?

Did Roman wars or civil wars last centuries? Prolonged constant warfare is always far worse brief intense wars. When a war is dragged out over a long period of time, resources and population are depleted and there is no opportunity to replenish them.
This is in contrast to Rome, which did not have continuous wars.

As I also mentioned earlier, low-level warfare was an integral fact of life for the northern barbarians. Every account we have of the Germans for example, mentions it, and it did not seem to hinder their ability to wage war on their neighbours. Quite the contrary; it kept their warriors lean and mean. So warfare was an integral part of the way of life for Gauls and Germans, we know this. How was the last century more bloody than the preceeding ones? And how more bloody than Rome's and for that matter Germany's? And if this was so, why do we see an increase in urbanisation?

That's another reason why the Gauls didn't really stand a chance against the Romans. A fractured, essentially non-agrarian nations constantly fighting each other for power, with less resources and the ability to wage war compared to the Romans.

Mulceber has already adressed your alleged failed invasions of Germany and Britain. No Roman was stupid enough to launch any invasion anywhere with an eye on conquest without their logistical base firmly secure and ample supply for the armies ready. All our sources and all analysis shows this, Caesar would not have invaded either without it. So Mulceber is right, Caesar was merely making demonstrations, and successfully so. It even secured him German allies, not a bad thing, and typical Roman to keep a buffer between them and their enemies.

Yes, that's true - they were not actually invasions. But guess what? The common perception out there is that Caesar did conquer Britain. Another one of the popular myths contributing to the perception of how great Caesar was.

You add no new arguments to P2T1'a, and he cited sources, so please have a look above for me refutation of the statement that Vercingetorix had to summon the poor and needy only. There is plenty of evidence that other nobles were also rebelling. But such is merely natural in such a situation. Some nobles will see the advantage of allying themselves with Rome, other in resisting it. For comparison, look at the events of A.D. 9; before he annihilated Varus, Arminus held/attended a feast/meeting of Cherusci nobles. Some were pro-Roman (Segestes and his faction), some were pro-rebel. In fact Arminus' brother Flavius kept faith with Rome all through the campaigns of Germanicus, and his uncle Ingiumerus only joined late. In germanicus' campaign too, it is seen how Arminus rouse the tribes to battle, high and low. So if you compare the rebel leaders, their situation is remarkably similar. Both face resistance from other nobles, but also support. I bet you if we look (could look) at other Roman wars you would se pro- and anti-Romans in them; Divide and conquer...

I never said he summoned the poor and needy only. I said the majority of his army was not the well trained soldiers or the nobility - the majority were the untrained levies.

No, I maintain that Caesar was a great general as he succeeded in forming an army that was absolutely and almost fanatically loyal to him, and with it to defeat:Barbarian War-hostGuerrilla in rough terrain with little infrastructure...Further he was superb in selecting junior officers, another sign of a great commander.He also had a vision for Rome and its empire, but that is more the political arena....

As those above have mentioned, I would agree with the idea that Caesar was a better politician than general. His achievements in the Civil War were notable. But to me, the Gallic Wars were not, and entirely overrated.

My main point is that Caesar was by no means Rome's greatest general as popular perception makes him out to be. I'd choose generals such as Marius during the Cimbrian Wars over Caesar during the Gallic Wars any day.

Mulceber

02-22-2010, 23:43

I guess I could have just said Titus, however I normally include the two together as they kinda go hand in hand...you are right there. However I think this was a far more determinded, tenacious, and fanatical opponent than many of those Caesar faced. These WERE religious fanatics after all, and they did succeed in destroying a Roman army at the battle of Beth Horon. In fact Roman reports during this war were extremely subdued compared to the norm. This was a VERY serious rebellion. I wouldnt neccesarily put Titus above Caesar, but he is a leader that perhaps merits more discussion as he was quite brutally effective.

I can agree to that. Roman reports were likely more subdued because the revolt happened when the Julio-Claudian dynasty was enduring its death-throws, so the revolt was understandably less of a concern for most Roman citizens. I agree though that Titus deserves praise for his handling of a dangerous revolt being carried out by people who were fanatically devoted to their cause.

More farmland, more wealth - those factors lead to an increase in population growth.

Rome didn't give that land to it's citizens though - at least not in most cases. They had hegemony over it, but in most cases from my understanding the majority of the land stayed in the hands of locals, and what didn't was given over to aristocrats to farm using slaves. Now, Rome did found colonies (heck, that's a major part of the system for EB II), but when Roman troops were being conscripted for war, they assembled on the Campus Martius, which means only those Roman citizens living within a fairly close proximity to Rome would be able to show up. Having conquered large tracts of land did not translate to a larger body of citizens.

But Rome went to war every few generations,

Every few GENERATIONS? Try Every few years. Seriously, read a history book on the 2nd century BCE - less than five years after defeating Hannibal, Rome went to war again with Macedon. Then there was the war against Antiochus, the Third Punic war, the revolt by Korinthos. Population becomes seriously depleted.

Caesar''s first landing in Britain was a complete failure.

Bad weather complicated it and they ultimately had to abort it, but from my understanding, the casualties were rather low.

As for Caesar's 2nd invasion, sure he was able to subdue one of the regional kings. But the long term effects was nill since British kings continued to meddle in the Gallic-Roman wars on the side of the Gauls.

uhm...what history book have you been reading? I've never ready any text that suggests that the Britons remained in the war on the side of the Gauls. Or any side for that matter.

Rome at this point had far more resources than all of Gaul combined. Their ability to make war would've thus been far greater than anything Vercingetorix had.

Yes, and by Augustus' time Rome was even more powerful, yet Arminius was still able to "persuade" them that they didn't want to colonize Germany. German society was similar to Celtic society with regard to the frequent infighting and, if I understand correctly, the level of techniological development. There's no reason to think Vercingetorix couldn't have hoped to destroy Caesar's forces and thus send a message that the Gauls were not going to be colonized.

Or they criticized Caesar for starting something rather senseless and using troops and resources to hasten what was inevitable anyways.

Do you have a history book to back this assertion up?

I agree. But why don't we ever learn about Caesar's other battles as opposed to the Gallic Wars?

We do. It was called "commentarii de bello civile" - it's Caesar's other book. The difference between bello civile and bello gallico is that we actually have other sources for the civil war. IIRC, the general assessment of Caesar's description of the civil war is that it's certainly slanted (even misleadingly so) to justify his decisions, but it's essentially correct in its facts.

The rise of latifundas is more attributable to the redistribution of conquered lands, rather than farmers dying in war. Rome's
overall population numbered in the tens of millions by Caesar's time...there would not have been any real shortage of manpower to work the farms. Wealthy individuals just found it cheaper to use slaves for giant plantations...and the smaller farmers could not compete and were driven to poverty.

I'm seeing an inconsistancy of numbers here. First you tell me Rome's overall population was 5 million, now you're saying "tens of millions." Which is it? And how many of those are citizens?

Yes, that's true - they were not actually invasions. But guess what? The common perception out there is that Caesar did conquer Britain. Another one of the popular myths contributing to the perception of how great Caesar was.

I've never heard anyone with anything more than a high school class's worth of knowledge on Rome assert that Caesar conquered Britain. Actually, I've never heard ANYONE claim Caesar conquered Britain.

My main point is that Caesar was by no means Rome's greatest general as popular perception makes him out to be. I'd choose generals such as Marius during the Cimbrian Wars over Caesar during the Gallic Wars any day.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Although I'd encourage everyone here to think about "what does 'greatest general' mean?" as CaesarDion pointed out, different generals face different opponents at different times when there country is at a different level of need. Added to that, what constitutes a great general? To me, broadly speaking, there are two arts of generalship: tactics and strategy. So when we're talking great generals, we're talking about two different arts combined. Also, what constitutes a great general? The amount of land they conquered? The skill of the enemy they defeated? The number of different types of enemies they defeated? the number of victories vs. defeats? Ultimately, I'd argue this whole discussion is pointless. It's fun, because we get to discuss the various merits of different generals, but it's ultimately pointless. A good case can be made for calling Caesar Rome's greatest general. A good case can also be made for calling a whole host of other people Rome's greatest general. It all depends on how you judge the criteria. -M

mrjade06

02-23-2010, 02:36

a few things as im rather enjoying this discussion Mulceber,

you are very much in the camp that you think caesar was one of rome's greatest generals.
Im very much in the camp that thinks he wasnt. However one thing you havent told me...is what seperates Caesar to you from say a Pompey Magnus? Because to me, if you just look at their generalship and enemies faced and defeated they are almost identical in many respects. Both properly deployed and used the might of Rome as it was trained and intended to be used, and to be honest, neither did anything all THAT spectacular in some respects depending on how you look at it..if you are JUST looking at Caesar as a General and not other aspects. Because while I maintain he was an above average to good general, he was perhaps the greatest of all Romans. Im just curious as to what you think seperates him and makes him superior to the other generals, especially Belisarius as well as Scipio and Aetius? And once again just talking about generalship, in other regards Caesar was clearly their superior.

Yes, and by Augustus' time Rome was even more powerful, yet Arminius was still able to "persuade" them that they didn't want to colonize Germany. German society was similar to Celtic society with regard to the frequent infighting and, if I understand correctly, the level of techniological development. There's no reason to think Vercingetorix couldn't have hoped to destroy Caesar's forces and thus send a message that the Gauls were not going to be colonized.

Ah but here you make a few easy and fundamental mistakes when you analyze these two. You need to look at it from a Roman leader's perspective, a sort of cost/risk/benefit analysis
1. Were the Germans and Gauls of equal strength? I would argue the Germans were far stronger, and in recent migrations such as the Teutones who had dominated the Gauls show this.
2. Was the terrain really that favorable for the protracted campaign for the Romans in Germania?
3. Were there large centers of population that you could capture and thus defeat the German peoples?
4. Was there really any money to be made from taxing the people or other forms of easily obtainable revenues?
5. What would be the logistics of operating such a large campaign?
6. Would the cost be worth the potential reward?
7. Was there any prestige to be made in really conquering the Germans?
8. Were they perceived as a serious threat to Rome that needed to be dealt with at this time?
9. Were the Legions needed to be used in such a campaign also needed elsewhere so the Rome couldn't spare them?

When you weigh all of these factors together, it becomes apparent that the Germans really werent worth the Roman's valuable resources, manpower, time and energy to try and conquer. While the Germans may have been similar to the Gallic tribes in some ways, they were actually very different.

Macilrille

02-23-2010, 12:33

Many replies packed in one, but the reply to one may adress the problems of another, so read all my long-windedness ;-).

I may be back later on the actual generalship-debate, I already spent 2½ hours on this one.

Parallel Pain

Sorry I have to disagree with this. The city walls are great protection against an enemy army. Trade goods are a necessity of war.

During prolonged period of war, like say over a century of constant warfare, someone somewhere down the line would realize that centralizing power would allow them to mobilize more troops which means they have a higher chance of winning. Cities aid in administration, which increases centralization. Warfare requires improving travel/communication infrastructure for troops/information travel, which both increases centralization and is made better by a centralized government. This also allows merchants to travel around better. Governments also need food to feed troops, iron to make weapons and armors for troops, and money to pay troops. What better way to get these stuff than making merchants do it? Even during times of Total War warring nations could agree not hindering merchants of any party unless they were caught as spies. This is because trade is paying everyone, and it would hurt one's own nation more to blockade and stop trade than increase its chance of victory over rivals.

During these periods urbanization would also increase. Against a squad of 10 pillaging soldiers a farming family is just prey. But what about 10 farming families? What about 30 gathered together in a small village with pallisades around it? What about a citiy with thousands of families and a huge wall? The people would gather together for mutual protection. They would also take advantage of trading/administrative opportunities to go to towns and cities, further increasing urbanization.

I bring you the Chinese Spring and Autumn/Warring States period and the Japanese Sengoku Jidai, both of which could be classified as "Total War"

Now I am not saying that's what happened in Gaul. I am saying you can't say because there was an increase in urbanization and trade it is impossible for the period to have been during or immediately after a period of extremely bloody conflict and civil strife. I think what determines whether the "civil wars" leads to "ruralization" and "power vacuum" leads to "power sharing", or if they lead to "urbanization" and "centralization of power (locally)" is population number. Whether or not during this time of conflict there has been enough babies being born to replace the ones dying of violence, famine, and disease which all inevitablly increase during such periods. If the answer is yes, or that there is more than enough and population's actually increasing (centralization+ urbanization = better irrigation/agricultural project = increase food output = increase in population) then prolonged periods of war leads to urbanization and centralization.

However, a common maxim in political science is “All nations have an army, their own or their neighbour’s”. Thus the common perception in the study of early societies that urbanisation has to go hand in hand with centralisation of power. If not a centralised power (prince, king, duke) the city would have to provide security for itself like Greek Polies, Rome and the medieval cities in the Low Countries. However, I can think of no instance at all where urbanisation has not happened under the protection of some chief/king. In fact the study of urbanisation (and the trade inevitably going hand in hand with it) is a very important part of studying the development of the early state here in Scandinavia. Cities’ inhabitants have to eat, you cannot till the land behind the walls. Contrary to what you seem to assert, cities need a very large rural population to support them- they do not all suddenly go behind the walls

My point thus is; if Gaul saw an increase in urbanisation, there could not have been a power vacuum as Intranetusa claimed there was. Further, as urbanisation is always a consequence of a rise in population, Gaul could not have been a depopulated wasteland as Intranetusa claimed.

However I do have to agree that such a long period of warfare would have created a large number of fighting professionals and maintained or even increased that number compaired to previous. Constant warfare lasting multiple generations would not have decreased this number (at this percentage wise) in general but increased it. The only time when it would decrease would be after a certain devastating battle/campaign/war that is part of the general period. And that number would recover (though it would take time).

In the end what made the difference I believe (besides Caesar's personal genius) was that the Celtic military AFAIK comprised of a core and relatively small number of professional fighting elites backed by large number of seasonal untrained levies. This was the system during many age and place in the far east as well. The bad side being of course the untrained farmer levies are unreliable, their quality varied greatly, lower morale, seasonal campaigning, and depending greatly on the cores of elites for inspiration. Facing these the Romans had a professional conscript force with at least basic training, better logistical organization, year round (in theory) campaigning ability, and a heck of a lot of other edges over the former kind of military.

It worked for the Germans ;-) But of course their geopolitical situation was different; especially as there were no urban centres for the Romans to occupy and use for their rule. The question is also how large a number of Gauls were under arms as trained elites compared to how many Romans Caesar brought. Of this I have no idea, but I can tell you from experience that a number of warbands comprised of trained warriors can easily be welded together as an effective fighting force under a central leader. It takes about a week (I am discussing with the arrangers to be giving a discourse on that at a PhD symposium this spring or summer). However, when you add untrained levies it becomes a nightmare, and here I speak both from logic, the wisdom of military analysists and experience- yes gods when we get new warriors they run around like headless hens and get cut down by us oldies in their confusion and lack of skill. And the attempt to command them takes so much attention from us old hands that we often get cut down as well. I honestly believe that counter to general perception; only at the two very last battles did Arminus use the levy. In any case, the Gauls probably had to, and that would have cost them against the well-trained, later seasoned, men of Caesar’s army.

P2T1 compares the fighting elite to Marines, a more apt comparison would be to my ancestors, the Vikings, who lived in a very similar society and who, despite losses and defeats kept pouring out of the north to raid, summer after summer. If the warrior aristocracy is “broad” enough and not exclusive- and reproduces at a high rate cause they expect losses and do not just get one son each, they can replenish themselves pretty fast. At least the Vikings and medieval nobility were able to.

I also apparently did not well enough explain what source criticism is I cannot show you sources for source criticism. Source criticism is a skill all historians must have, it is like a taxi driver needs a driver’s license and the ability to drive (though one would not always believe it from the way they drive). Historians look at the source then think “What was the situation? What is his motivation? What is the context? Then you consider why he is saying as he does in the situation? As I showed in the example above, Caesar is trying to alleviate the fear of his soldiers by downplaying the threat from the Germans. He does this by pointing to the Helvetii routinely beating Germans while they themselves beat the Helvetii, and by claiming that only because the Aedui had bled themselves white could the Germans beat them (in fact I would say it rather seems instead that Ariovistus only attacked when the Gauls’ supplies were wearing out). So there is no more truth to that statement than to Montgomery’s in 1944 that Arnhem was only defended by old men and young boys with inferior arms when in fact the II SS Pz Korps was refitting there.

Source criticism is what you do when you read a newspaper, if you read a tabloid press paper; you have a healthy dose of scepticism. If you read a left-wing paper and a right-wing paper the same event is described in two totally different ways. Again you apply a healthy dose of scepticism. You do the same to historical sources. That is source criticism and it is the basis and foundation of all historical scholarship.

So, Caesar’s claim that Gaul was exhausted is almost worthless because of its context, we cannot trust it unless supported by other sources. Which it seems not to be (possibly because of the small number of sources), in fact archaeology seems to show the opposite; that urbanisation was on the rise and that population, trade and centralisation of power was thus also rising (see above). I know little of Gallic history, but I know that if one is the case the others will also be, and that Caesar’s statement does not hold water because of its context. The crucial point of my argument is whether or not we saw an increase in urbanisation. I believe so, but I am no expert on Gallic urbanisation. Anyone else?

MrJade, by your reckoning no nation with an effective army and logistical system can have a great general? So no American general of WWII was great? No German of 1940 (when their logistics still worked)? Personally I believe that both Alexander and Caesar used the superb military machine at their disposal to its best effect.

Intranetusa compares Rome’s 5 mil population to Gaul’s at the time, in fact Rome itself was reaching a million inhabitants and the official Census of 70/69 BC gives the figure of Roman Citizens as 900.000 or 910.000, so I do not know where you got that from. And Gaul was by no means the only threat (real or imagined) the Romans had to deal with. Parthia, Dacia and Egypt were all troublespots and the Iberian Peninsula was far from subdued. Yes of course Rome vs Gaul was very unequal if there had been only Gaul to deal with, but while Caesar was in Gaul there were several other wars going on and many threats-in-being to be countered. In fact it was by and large not Rome vs Gaul, it was Rome vs The World. And in its direst emergency when Rome called up even freedmen in 90- 89 BC, 250.000 men from all over Italy was under arms. This was the muster of Italy, your “huge levy”, I do not consider it that huge...

All our sources from mid 2nd Century BC to early empire talks of manpower shortage and problems in drafting enough soldiers, all of them, how you so flippantly dismiss them (and with no countersources) is beyond me.
It is well-documented and acknowledged that Rome was in dire straits with regards to manpower. We have sources for this, there are none for the dearth of manpower in Gaul, yet you persist in claiming that Rome’s enemies had more manpower problems?
On what sources do you build this? Especially your statements that “a dying Gallic tribe of barely equipped, half starved, and poorly trained farmers”, “was already falling apart and dirt poor from centuries of civil war with other Gallic tribes” and “The army Vercingetorix raised was mostly a rag tag band of barely trained farmers who had just beat their farming tools into spears”. And I wish for sources not the usual blanket statements, otherwise I cannot continue to take your arguments seriously I am sorry to say. Nothing personal, but anyone can claim anything, we need sources if we are to discuss seriously.

I am also quite curious as to when Gaul became none-agrarian? I thought Gaul was exactly that; a rural semi-urbanised culture subsisting on the produce of the land. But that may be a question of definitions or my misunderstanding of what you wrote.

If you check the analysis-es I post below you will see that Rome did not go to war every few generations, but that war was a constant of Roman politics all through the Republic (and onwards), there would always be a border war broiling somewhere, usually in many places. A major campaign pretty often, and outright war at least once every generation was the rule; IE a constant drain on manpower that everybody except you acknowledge and see as the major factor of the fall of the Republic. And I am only slightly oversimplifying the problem, I refer you to Brunt below for an in-depth 716-pages analysis ;-) or rather the shorter one, it is quite an interesting read. As you see, I do not ascribe to myths (at least I hope not to, and know I do not in a field of interest).

So I repeat, Rome was suffering from very severe manpower problems. We do not know whether Gaul did, but your description of them as a sort of dying nation, starved, with no resources, dwindling populations and no centralised power or armed force (IE upper classes) where Caesar had but to kick the door and the whole rotting structure would collapse, is unsupported by any evidence.

Horatius, you are right at that, and Sulla is sort of on my original list as well, but you did cite the 20 as reason…

My sources
Badian, E.: Roman Imperialism in The Late Republic, Oxford, 1968.
Beard, Mary & Crawford, Michael: Rome in The Late Republic, London, 1999.
(a) Brunt, Peter: Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London, 1971.
(b): Italian Manpower, Oxford, 1971
Harris, W. V.: War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327- 70 BC,
Oxford, 1979.
Christensen, Erik: Romersk Historie, Aarhus, 1995.
Ørsted, Peter: Cæsar, Kbh, 2006.
The two latter in Danish though.

L.C. SVLLA

02-24-2010, 20:47

i love how interentusa made Caesar's war(s) sound so simple. I'm amazed how civilians can simply abase his deserved and hard won victories.

SlickNicaG69

02-24-2010, 23:10

Ceaser is not "overrated." He was great because he fought battles that only great men could win!!! He was the greatest of the greatest because he fought and won many battles of such a type!!! When you assume him to be "overrated" because he fought against a less civilized, less technologically advanced, less militarily disciplined people, you generalize his accomplishments by neglecting the nature in which they were achieved. Yes, many generals of his day could have conquered Gaul, but only Caesar could have won at Alesia or successfully relieve Quintus Cicero - surrounded by 100,000 Gauls - with only 2 legions from complete destruction. You might say such behavior - to place himself in such risky circumstances - is foolish and indicative of a poor general, but it was his ability to get himself out of such circumstances and prevail that made him great, and proved the superiority in tactics that great generals are made of. As Macirille said, Caesar possessed all of the qualities that Alexander the Great possesed. But not even Alexander risked his whole campaign and life to relieve the distress of a subordinate general. Not only that, but Caesar was not a king and had a greater authority than himself to answer to - the people and senate of Rome. It may be true that Caesar lost more battles (as I have not studied Alexander in detail I do not even know if he lost one), but as the saying goes: He was "not King, but Caesar!!!"

Parallel Pain

02-25-2010, 00:14

However, a common maxim in political science is “All nations have an army, their own or their neighbour’s”. Thus the common perception in the study of early societies that urbanisation has to go hand in hand with centralisation of power. If not a centralised power (prince, king, duke) the city would have to provide security for itself like Greek Polies, Rome and the medieval cities in the Low Countries. However, I can think of no instance at all where urbanisation has not happened under the protection of some chief/king. In fact the study of urbanisation (and the trade inevitably going hand in hand with it) is a very important part of studying the development of the early state here in Scandinavia. Cities’ inhabitants have to eat, you cannot till the land behind the walls. Contrary to what you seem to assert, cities need a very large rural population to support them- they do not all suddenly go behind the walls

My point thus is; if Gaul saw an increase in urbanisation, there could not have been a power vacuum as Intranetusa claimed there was. Further, as urbanisation is always a consequence of a rise in population, Gaul could not have been a depopulated wasteland as Intranetusa claimed.

It's true urbanization can't happen without the protection of some leader. However this leader does not need to be a national leader. For example, if the king of France was a puppet with no control, he can not protect the cities of France well enough to carry out national urbanization. But that doesn't stop the Duke of Orleans from carrying out urbanization in Orleans if he has an extremely centralized control over his own domain, that is Orleans and the surrounding countryside. There's also nothing stopping the neighbours of Orleans from doing the same out of fear/awe of Orleans. And there's nothing stopping the neighbours of those neighbours. What we have then is France fragmented, with a power vacuum over its leadership, but with urbanization occuring all over France because of regional concentration of power. Someone can immerge out of this to become the new King, or establish himself as "Regency" like the Mayor of the Mannor in early middle ages France, or each domain could become so independent they just break off into different countries. That still doesn't stop urbanization as long as each Duke/Count bla bla is centralizating control over his own domain and the population is increasing. Mind you centralization of power always meets with resistence so there's no guarantee Orleans wouldn't fracture into a bunch of smaller fiefs instead, though the Duke should be smart enough to see whether or not he has the power to centralize control.

I also did not assert that the urban population does not need a large rural population for support. However urbanization is not just the appearance of cities, but also of (fortified) towns and villages or varrying sizes, which really just provide protection to a rural farming population but is still "urbanized" enough to promote markets, administrations, and be a place to fight over.

The power vacuum stated here occured, if I remember right, about 120BCE. The power vacuum was over the leader ship of Gaul. That is, which tribe or tribal confederation gets to be "hegemon" like a Shogun or a Spring and Autumn Hegemon or Athens in its empire or Sparta over the Peloponnesian League or the Roman Republic in its early stages.
What is proposed here (I don't actually know whether or not that was the case since this is not my area) is that with the defeat of the Arverni a power vacuum over the leadership of Gaul immerged and tribal confederacies began to fight over it. About 60 years passed before Caesar came trotting along, and it seems that would be enough time for centralization/urbanization/population increase to begin to accelerate (going by Eastern experience unfortunately).

Under this circumstance it is not unreasonable to think that each tribal leader would have tried to centralize power in his own domain, ie he can better tell the aristocrats what to do (or get rid of them all together), get more taxes, levy more farm hands for construction, build more walls and forts and roads, establish better bureaucracy, recruit, equip, train, and employ more troops, and in general better his chances of winning the war. This then helps urbanization which in turn helps centralization. But notice here the centralization is not of Gaul in its entirety, but only what the tribe/confederacy controls. There's still a power vacuum over the leadership of Gaul. Yet urbanization is occuring all over Gaul, since all tribes/confederacy would try to go down the same path to match each other.

In this proposed case, which I stress is only my proposal as I do not have much knowledge of this time and period, the tribe/confederacy most able to centralize power in its own domain to better conquer its neighbours would have in the end won hedgemony/rulership over Gaul, that is if the Romans and Germans didn't intervene.

Oh and I also don't agree that Gaul was depopulated wasteland. It was ravaged yes. It wasn't a depopulated wasteland. There's really not much stopping reconstruction occuring side be side with destruction. In fact it HAS to happen as people attempt to repair the damage done. Sometimes, like in Sengoku Japan and Warring States China, the speed or reconstruction was even faster than the speed of destruction.

Caesar certainly mentioned a mirad of people with substantial population during his "trip" in Gaul. If it was a depopulated wasteland he should've just colonized the place. But he had to fight for it. So either it wasn't depopulated and he was a damn good general, or it was depopulated and he was a blind idiot (which would make how he defeated Pompey a great mystery).

Macilrille

02-25-2010, 00:40

Well, I was not actually talking about a single royal power, so we do not really disagree. AFAIK such did not ever exist until Gaul became Kingdom of the Franks, if even then.

However, Intranetusa asserted that Gaul was a depopulated wasteland with no warriors left and thus ready for caesar to just have his will with. As a counter to that I showed the weakness of the sources He (presumable as he cited none) and P2T1 cited and pointed out that a protecting warrior class and aristocracy has to exist in order for urbanisation to proceed. And as it did proceed, we can assume that there were warriors to provide protection and nobles/warriors to provide administration (speaking loose sense here, you know what I mean and I am too tired to elaborate ATM, it is 00.37 here in Dk). Gaul was thus not a depopulated wasteland with no protection, probably quite the contrary. And I pointed out that low-level intrinsic warfare was an integral part of such a society at that stage of development of statehood. In fact it was necessary for it to continue centralisation as the chief needed booty and taxes with which to reward his warriors, and that constant low-level warfare kept the warriors in shape rather than weaken them. At least that seems to have been the case with the Germans (and later Vikings).

Anyway, that cleared up I will to bed. Sleep well all, or have a good day in case you are on the opposite side of the globe.

the man with no name

02-25-2010, 01:30

The army Vercingetorix raised was mostly a rag tag band of barely trained farmers who had just beat their farming tools into spears...especially during his revolt against his own nobility.
As for half starving, the Gauls were short on supplies resources. And they were pretty much starved-to-death by the time Caesar won Alesia.
IMO, Caesar's victories are entirely overrated since it was entirely an asymettrical war. Rome near its post-Marian Republican height with far more resources, manpower, etc VS the Gallic tribes who were half dead from fighting each other and many of which had already essentially become Roman tributaries.

LIke this from the book of Job in the bible?: "They shall beat their plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears, let the weak say 'I am Strong'"?

autolycus

02-25-2010, 04:03

I don't have much to add. I'm just happy that I've found a place where when I say Hannibal, most people don't think "Lecter"

L.C. SVLLA

02-25-2010, 04:32

However, Intranetusa asserted that Gaul was a depopulated wasteland with no warriors left and thus ready for caesar to just have his will with.

interentusa listened to too much revisionist history made by some gallo biased scholar.

The gauls had plenty of food, and funny enough going against what interentusa said, they ran out of food because their army was too large to feed over a long time. and even then Caesar beat them. what now, it's unfair that caesar's army was better trained and prepared:laugh4:?

these 'history professionals' here are weird. denying even the most basic history facts just to seem different and cool distorts history more than it already is.

Macilrille

02-25-2010, 08:03

interentusa listened to too much revisionist history made by some gallo biased scholar.

The gauls had plenty of food, and funny enough going against what interentusa said, they ran out of food because their army was too large to feed over a long time. and even then Caesar beat them. what now, it's unfair that caesar's army was better trained and prepared:laugh4:?

these 'history professionals' here are weird. denying even the most basic history facts just to seem different and cool distorts history more than it already is.

AFAIK I am currently the only professional historian active here, and it is not sufficient when you meet people distorting "facts" (there is little truth to history, only likely interpretations/guesses) or passing on such, to just say "no" outright.
To do so makes people tend to believe them, you have to spend time refuting their arguments showing that they do not hold water, to enlighten them, so they will know the better. You have no idea how much that frustrates me on Youtube:help:

In this case, I know very little of the matter at hand, but I know enough to see that the argument is faulty here and unless new ones presented; is refuted. And to thus hopefully enlighten people a little bit. That is my task as a professional, to seek knowledge and pass it on. If nothing else I hope I showed P2T1 the fundamentals of source criticism, we Danish historians are almost anal about that, but it is such an important field.

Coincidentally, and back on topic, yes the exhaustion of the Aedui when they faced Ariovistus was likely, as I have stated, caused rather by him avoiding contact till they had run out of food. However, it was him by all rights that should have run out first, leading a badly orgainised German army in foreign territory. This tells us that the numbers given by Caesar for Ariovistus' army is exaggerated and that he was no mean general in his own right. A fact underlined by some of his maneuvres before the battle itself, he effectively isolated the Romans from their sources of supply. Sadly for him that did not help him much, as Caesar kept his focus and took on the main force.

Slickniga, slight nudge as some opponents of Caesar would point it out to you and I sort of have to be professional and objective; the 100.000 just means "many", the numbers in ancient sources are often exaggerated by quite a lot (for example if we look at the number given for the Cimbrii and Teutons it is more than half of the estimated population of the entire Germania at the time, 3 mil AFAICR and the migration was numbered at 1.7 mil in our sources IIRC, a tenth of that number is more likely and still very large). But no doubt it was an accomplishment to best the horde (whatever its number it was enough to overcome the belaguered) and aid Quintus.

Alexander suffered no defeats at all, he was truly great.

However, I still believe Caesar to be if not his equal, then at least close. But I have no time to argue the case ATM. Time to do something else.

Parallel Pain

02-25-2010, 09:45

Didn't Alexander get ambushed and defeated at some mountain pass in Persia?

geala

02-25-2010, 10:56

No, he was not. There were some defeats of Macedonian armies or troops (against the Scythians f.e.), but then they were led by generals, not Alexandros himself. Some say however that he was responsible for the defeats because he gave the troops not the necessary backup, perhaps because of envy and distrust for some of the generals.

I think Mulceber and Macilrille told already the important facts concerning Caesar and the conquest of Gaul. Although I don't like this fellow I have to acknowledge his superb military and political abilities. He was one of the greatest antique generals. Please take into account that it was not "Rome against the Gauls", but for a certain degree a private war of a proconsul, backed only by a relatively small powerbase. A person with less aptitude and determination could have collapsed easily and Caesar was sometimes near defeat, although he tried to gloss over this.

"Centuries of civil war" in Gallia is misleading. There was no Gaulish state and no civil war, just war between the different tribes. Some tribes were divided internally and that was always the best chance for any foreign might, here for Caesar. That the Gauls were backwards in agriculture compared to Rome is totally new to me btw, it was more the other way round.

The Germanic tribes were in a similar situation as the Celts, only not so much developed, a bit poorer and more "barbaric". All in all not very sympathetic guys in my point of view, but that's personal. There was nothing like a "Germanic identity" or love between the tribes, but mostly war. Centuries of war so to say, before the Romans came. Germania became a Roman province (not officially but in fact) after harsh struggle about 4 BC and the Romans started to make it a part of the empire like Gallia, f.e. building civil towns. Why Rome did not try to really reconquer the province after 9 AD and 16 AD is a very complicated matter and has much to do with the personality of the leading persons, some coincidences and only some factual reasons.

Power2the1

02-25-2010, 13:13

In this case, I know very little of the matter at hand, but I know enough to see that the argument is faulty here and unless new ones presented; is refuted. And to thus hopefully enlighten people a little bit. That is my task as a professional, to seek knowledge and pass it on. If nothing else I hope I showed P2T1 the fundamentals of source criticism, we Danish historians are almost anal about that, but it is such an important field.

One can source criticize everything thing you want, but when leading professional Celtic historians (which you are not admittedly and say you know very little of the matter at hand) agree and do not deny that there was a long term civil war/inter tribal warfare, whatever politically correct term one wishes to call it, they probably know what they are talking about? I think you are looking for something that doesn't exist, like non existent articles that say it was not in fact Caesar defeated the Gauls. Theres no challenge that I have come across. Please, Macrille, you or someone, show evidence from some Celtic or anti-Celtic author that this warfare in Gaul was a myth made up by Caesar. We can go from there. Really, I have read so many publications and articles criticizing Caesar, but not a single one denies this long term warfare between the Aedui and Arverni or give a reason why one would be false or blown out of proportion. Unless some Celtic historian challenges this widely held view (that is so far unchallenged in articles berating the Gallic War writings), then it stands against everything in this thread saying otherwise.

____________________________________

None say the Gauls were in a state of famine. No article I have ever read says that hunger determined the outcome of the Gallic War. To those that think the Gauls at the time at large numbers of highly trained warriors waiting for action, why there no determinative pitched battle, Gaul vs. Roman, like with Caesar fought against Ariovistus? The Germans could muster the manpower to fight the Romans, why could the Gauls one must ask? Look at the the long battle against the Helvetti which wasn't decided until nightfall; how 500 Celtic cavalry repelled 4-5,000 of Caesar's own; the massive losses his highly trained soldiers took from Ambiorix (around 7-9,000 Romans dead) especially when numbers on both sides were equal; the defeat a Gergovia and his covering it up as nothing, etc...

The Gallic War was no walk in the park. The seeming impotence of the Arverni and Aedui against Caesar should spell some measure of insight on their military capacity once Caesar finally arrived, and these were the biggest two powerhouses in Gaul, yet, neither could apparently manage to fight a pitched battle against Caesar like the Germans. We know the Aedui lost the majority of their professional warriors, the knights, against fighting the Germans for so long, but how about the Arverni? Why did they not summon a large body of fresh professionals left over from the Aedui and Averni war and throw them against the Romans? The pro and anti roman divisions were there as Caesar mentions (or will somebody challenge that statement too?), but once the anti-Roman group 'won' and incorporated the Aedui into their side, wheres the mention of professionals warriors heeding his call and, why would Caesar, the egoist, say he defeated levies of the poor and desperate? Its no great wonder when you look at how those outside the scope of the Aedui and Arverni war fared so much better against Caesar (the Belgae and Helvetti) than the two powers said to be the greatest in all of Gaul.

Centuries of civil war in Gaul is misleading. At the earliest, Aedui vs. Arverni warfare would have lit up after 121 B.C. when the Romans crushed the Arverni at Vindalium. At the most that would have been about 60 years of warfare between the two powers. The only notable ravaging of Gaul was the military, save the actions of the Helvetti at the start of their migration. There are no reports of large scale burning, destruction, and otherwise detrimental effects on the landscape or population that has been found archaeologically. Of course there had to have been some, but saying that total war existed and caused the downfall of the Gauls if unprecedented. The urbanization was at it's highest levels in central and southern Gaul, not counting the Provence. The states of Gaul are defined as belonging to the Arverni, Aedui, Helvetti, Bituriges, and the Sequani. Possible states existed among the Pictones and other western Celtic tribes north of Aquitania. Yes, Caesar called them states, or proto-states one could argue, probably on the Roman definition of one as they had senates, constitution, urbanization , etc...

Whats true is these guys at the top of the social ladder would attempt to harness their power and reign everyone in under them. I mention earlier that Orgetorix attained 10,000 of these vassals, probably consisting of the knights and other top fighters. More than 10,000 went against Caesar so we know the vassals plus others, maybe levies and other men that chose to fight, were apart of the those that took up arms. We know if the leading warriors were defeated, it would spell disaster for the tribe. Case in point is the Aedui when they lost against Ariovistus. Once their knights and other leading warriors were defeated, who will take up arms against the victor, much less lead them against the victor? The Gallic aristocracy, the remaining knights, and other vassals or free men that took up arms could not have had the numbers, nor the leadership, needed to help their side attain mastery over the other. Here Romans and Germans were asked or hired in the fight to help where the Gallic numbers apparently were lacking and this lack would have had to have came form the violent warfare between the Aedui and Arverni in previous years leading up to their apparent slow decimation overtime of their leading warriors. Even Vercingetorix could only muster 15,000 knights out of all the Gauls that took to his cause. That is a very, very small number when you match that with Orgetorix's personal group is said to have numbered 10,000 out of the clans and dependents of the Helvetti. In fact, the apparent 92,000 fighting men of the Helvetti, no doubt split into divisions and units were able to ravage the lands of the Ambarri, Aedui, and the Allobroges at the same time because these tribe had nothing to offer in resistance and instead ran to Caesar for help. A resurgent and vigorous military is the last thing that appeared to happen in Gaul during this time.

moonburn

02-25-2010, 18:04

well i can´t say much about this debate but the siege of alesia was great for all that matters in terms of generalship if it can be atributed to cesar or the roman military machine is another subject of debate except that until the 17th century there was never such a grand scheme (maybe masalla when the romans killed the jews outside of jerusalem but a 700 meter ramp in comparison with 2 walls being the smallest one 24 kilometers)

as for census sake i believe cesar mentioned that there where 3 million men in italy 4 million in gaul and 2 million in belgium as for what these numbers means i have no real clue since i don´t know if slaves where counted as men (even tough one of cesars lietenents cicero´s younger brother is claimed to have said that it was a pity that a few of the gaulish serfs/slaves couldn´t be used as warriors since many had all the atributes to make great warriors)

anyway imho cesar was a great logistic general and had the charisma to get things his way and i believe that those are atributes of a great general and even if gaul was indeed "depleted" it was still a massive undertaking trying to subdue so many tribes in so many diferent terrains

as for the roman lack of soldiers the fact that the young men weren´t willing to join the army after the defeats pompey had suffered in the iberian peninsula by an outnumbered and outgunned sertorious (not to mention the lusitanian war where as many as 7 legions is said to have been crushed or the sieges of numantia where so many romans had died) doesn´t mean a conscription wouldn´t have been made and 250.000 men couldn´t have been gathered to fight in case of extreme emergency so roman wasn´t depopulated their problem was that the army life wasn´t atractive to the men since they couldn´t marry "officially" and for 25(?) years they where bounded to the army where there where 100 diferent ways to die a year

but there are many facts that point to the fact that cesar was having dificulty recruiting soldiers besides the po valley citizenship being given to the "gauls" there are also rumours that cesar daughter married pompey in exchange for the 6th and 13th legion of pompey being used to join cesar and reenforce him in gaul (or one should say to gain pompey´s favour and political influence)

Parallel Pain

02-25-2010, 23:28

Macilrille

02-26-2010, 11:25

You are probably thinking of The Battle for The Persian Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate), but after the initial ambush and repulse Alexander won the battle.

Macilrille

02-26-2010, 11:30

mrjade06

02-26-2010, 21:39

L.C. SVLLA

02-27-2010, 05:53

ah Macilrille, hate to tell you bud but you are NOT the only professional historian on this site...I for one am another...

For another, Caesar as a GENERAL is VASTLY overrated IMHO as I have stated repeatedly due to the fact that he had many many many accomplishments other than just soldiering, and he is beloved in Western culture. I think he was a good general, but the greatest Rome had? NO! Greatest politician Rome ever had? Now that is a good argument to make. Do you really think for a second that Caesar could have accomplished what Belisarius did? How about Scipio? Do you think Caesar could have met and defeated Hannibal? I for one think not. Caesar was by all rights defeated by Pompey, and would have been destroyed had it not been for senate interference in Pompey's plans. Does anyone here think Pompey was a great general? Caesar only defeated Vercingetorix by a stroke of luck catching him in Alesia. Before that, he was running wild doing as he pleased and Caesar could do nothing to stop him. Stop being such a Caesarphile and look at what he did objectively. He defeated a very divided group of tribes in Gaul with the most disciplined, powerful, well trained and organized army possibly ever in world history. He defeated Pompey due to the fact that the Senate forced him to do something he didnt want to after he hada lost the first battle between them, and almost the war, and won victories against vastly inferior armies in Egypt and Asia Minor. What Caesar was truly incredible at was recovering from a defeat, coming up with a new plan of action, and executing it. But a truly INCREDIBLE general wouldn't get beaten in the first place...

professional historians add more substance than basic knowledge of the gallic wars. you have a degree?

you make so many rash judgements..let me help...1stly the Gauls weren't insignificant tribes, a few of them mustered and Caesars soldiers were vastly out numbered. Caesars battles were hard fought, the Romans called the Gauls "war mad". so much so were they, that the now Roman veterans still had difficulty taming gauls during Caesars final pacification of gaul during vercingetorix's rebellion. you say he had a stroke of luck, what's stopping me from saying a genius move to trap vercingetorix in a hill town? there are two sides to every story, yet you clearly take the negative route and give no detail as why your opinion is better. furthermore, egypt a cakewalk? LOL, Caesar was trapped and vastly outnumbered in egypt, he couldn't trust his captives or the besieging Egyptians so out goes his diplomacy. Caesar was saved as soon as a few more troops arrived, and he made a damn good job of defending his position with a skeleton army. oh and pompey being FORCED to do anything? he made the decision to travel to greece and recruit soldiers DESPITE Cicero's judgement, he fought it in his own terms, and he lost it.

and why do you over look Africa? in his initial landings he was so outnumbered, SO few in men and material/food, and so equaled by his opponent general who betrayed him (a veteran general of the gallic war) lead the assault, caesar and his soldiers fought desperately until all his forces were wounded (just to give you a hint of a few men of his went up against so many), so heroic were his men that a soldier of the 10th LEG. threw his missile at the attacking general (who had many more troops) and proudly claimed what unit he was with, that Caesar could NOT be considered over rated. now, could Scipio do that? his descendant couldn't despite a superstitious rumor claimed that any scipio would never be defeated in Africa. Caesar still won, even with the numidians closing in on Caesar to fight a final battle after Caesar ferocious defense after the African landing. did i mention he practically had no food?

Caesar fought against swarms of war mad Gauls. in your own words; the best soldiers, the legions. and he fought what was thought the greatest general at the time, Pompey. and he won the war.

Caesar is not overrated, he is one of the greatest generals in history. Don't take my word for it, take napoleons. I and Macrille would side with that general over any EB fan historian here who says otherwise.

Mulceber

02-27-2010, 12:21

Caesar is not overrated, he is one of the greatest generals in history. Don't take my word for it, take napoleons. I and Macrille would side with that general over any EB fan historian here who says otherwise.

I'll add my name to that list. -M

Intranetusa

02-28-2010, 05:21

Rome didn't give that land to it's citizens though - at least not in most cases. They had hegemony over it, but in most cases from my understanding the majority of the land stayed in the hands of locals, and what didn't was given over to aristocrats to farm using slaves. Now, Rome did found colonies (heck, that's a major part of the system for EB II), but when Roman troops were being conscripted for war, they assembled on the Campus Martius, which means only those Roman citizens living within a fairly close proximity to Rome would be able to show up. Having conquered large tracts of land did not translate to a larger body of citizens.

I'm talking about Caesar's time, so it's gonna be an army of paid soldiers. I'm not talking about the conscript armies of the pre-Marian days. By Caesar's time, the Roman empire had a huge population
with plenty of people available for the military.

The entire point of my argument was that Rome had a much larger population and larger military (in terms of well equipped trained soldiers) than Vercingetorix. I'm not talking about Rome's population immediately after the Punic Wars.

Every few GENERATIONS? Try Every few years. Seriously, read a history book on the 2nd century BCE - less than five years after defeating Hannibal, Rome went to war again with Macedon. Then there was the war against Antiochus, the Third Punic war, the revolt by Korinthos. Population becomes seriously depleted.

Read my post.

Like I've repeatedly stated, I'm talking about population depletion regarding wars. Obviously there were plenty of wars that Rome fought it - but it didn't dent their population since they didn't suffer large casualties.
Most of the wars against Macedon were not even serious engagements, but mere border skirmishes. And in the few that were serious wars, Rome didn't exactly suffer huge casualties either. The 3rd Punic War was mostly just a one-sided massacre. The revolt by Korinthos was no real threat.

Population does not become seriously depleted because the Romans did not suffer huge casualties in those wars. They were mostly just steamrolling the opposition.

Bad weather complicated it and they ultimately had to abort it, but from my understanding, the casualties were rather low. uhm...what history book have you been reading? I've never ready any text that suggests that the Britons remained in the war on the side of the Gauls. Or any side for that matter.

Casualties were rather low because there was no serious engagement. Various Britons tribes did continue to support the Gauls.

Yes, and by Augustus' time Rome was even more powerful, yet Arminius was still able to "persuade" them that they didn't want to colonize Germany. German society was similar to Celtic society with regard to the frequent infighting and, if I understand correctly, the level of techniological development. There's no reason to think Vercingetorix couldn't have hoped to destroy Caesar's forces and thus send a message that the Gauls were not going to be colonized.

Celtic society was probably easier to pacify and they had a relatively better infrastructure.

The lands in Germany was relatively poor in comparison. Arminius didn't persuade the Romans anything because the Romans avenged Teutonberg forrest and handily defeated the Arminius. The Romans didn't bother going into Germany either due to logistical issues or it was just too poor to warrant a serious campaign/conquest.

Do you have a history book to back this assertion up?
No, that was my assumption, as a reply to what I assumed was your assumption as well. I haven't seen you reference any history books either.

We do. It was called "commentarii de bello civile" - it's Caesar's other book. The difference between bello civile and bello gallico is that we actually have other sources for the civil war. IIRC, the general assessment of Caesar's description of the civil war is that it's certainly slanted (even misleadingly so) to justify his decisions, but it's essentially correct in its facts.

I'm not saying other books don't exist. I'm saying the majority of emphasis is placed on the Gallic Wars.

I'm seeing an inconsistancy of numbers here. First you tell me Rome's overall population was 5 million, now you're saying "tens of millions." Which is it? And how many of those are citizens?
I got those numbers from a links from a livescience article. 5 million was probably the number of citizens/males/etc. Tens of millions was the entire population in general.

I've never heard anyone with anything more than a high school class's worth of knowledge on Rome assert that Caesar conquered Britain. Actually, I've never heard ANYONE claim Caesar conquered Britain.
Well where do you live? The perception that Caesar conquered everything he laid eyes on is pretty widespread.

Caesar fought against swarms of war mad Gauls. in your own words; the best soldiers, the legions. and he fought what was thought the greatest general at the time, Pompey. and he won the war.

Caesar is not overrated, he is one of the greatest generals in history. Don't take my word for it, take napoleons. I and Macrille would side with that general over any EB fan historian here who says otherwise.

If Pompey was considered the best general of the Roman Republic at the time...well, that's not saying much. As for Napleon, it's not surprising since Caesar wrote a bajillion books about himself, which definately helped contribute to his popularity.

I'm throwing my cards in with generals such as Marius and/or Sulla over lil Caesar's pizza.

Ludens

02-28-2010, 11:14

I'm talking about Caesar's time, so it's gonna be an army of paid soldiers. I'm not talking about the conscript armies of the pre-Marian days. By Caesar's time, the Roman empire had a huge population with plenty of people available for the military.

Yet one generation after Caesar, Augustus had major problems getting enough recruits for the legions. Population size did not equal manpower reserves in the Roman empire.

Mulceber

02-28-2010, 12:40

I'm talking about Caesar's time, so it's gonna be an army of paid soldiers. I'm not talking about the conscript armies of the pre-Marian days. By Caesar's time, the Roman empire had a huge population
with plenty of people available for the military.

It doesn't matter if they were career soldiers - Roman soldiers in Caesar's time still had to be citizens, and regardless of how many people there were living within the bounds of the Roman Empire, citizens were scarce enough that Rome had trouble mustering legions.

Various Britons tribes did continue to support the Gauls.

Source? Otherwise I'm just going to start ignoring your posts like Macilrille. Your claims run contrary to everything I have read about the Gallic War.

No, that was my assumption, as a reply to what I assumed was your assumption as well. I haven't seen you reference any history books either.

Meier's biography of Caesar. Admittedly not as diverse a list as Macilrille's but it's certainly better than nothing.

Well where do you live? The perception that Caesar conquered everything he laid eyes on is pretty widespread.

Upstate New York. Never heard it suggested that he conquered Britain. And I've yet to hear anyone else here suggest that they've heard it either.

As for Napleon, it's not surprising since Caesar wrote a bajillion books about himself, which definately helped contribute to his popularity.

A bajillion? Last I counted, it was two. Three if you count the Alexandrian War, which most people don't, since it was likely not written by Caesar. -M

Madoushi

02-28-2010, 12:59

I had no idea how little I knew about this subject untill just now.
I know nothing of Pompey or Germanicus' battles.

I always thought of Octavian as a great commander, though I can't recall the names of any major battles he commanded.
I know he fought both with and against Antony, though IIRC, Agrippa was his field commander by that point.

I mostly know Marius and Sulla through reputation, and admit I need to read up more on Scipio Africanus.

Starforge

02-28-2010, 17:02

i love how interentusa made Caesar's war(s) sound so simple. I'm amazed how civilians can simply abase his deserved and hard won victories.

First, I want to thank interentusa for starting what turned into an interesting thread. That being said, however, it would be interesting to know if he is pro-Celt or anti-Roman since, like most modern sporting events, it's customary for people rooting for a team to downplay why they lost or against a team and minimize that teams accomplishments.

You know what I mean - refs cheated, our best player was hurt, you paid more for your players, etc. Pretty common really.

I believe that Caesar was a very good if not great general - but I'll leave the details to the experts on here who have obviously spent more time researching this than myself.

mrjade06

03-02-2010, 06:45

ahh yeah buddy BA and MA Northwestern University, working on PHD at Penn State presently...might know just a little. And I'm sure macrille and I are hardly the only professional historians on this website. However I love on your big long reply that you say things like I said Egypt was a cakewalk...actually I never mentioned it. Same thing with Africa You might want to look back on what I have said previously. You are the one making grandiose claims with little supporting evidence, for example not knowing that yes Pompey DID defeat Caesar first on his terms, with relatively green troops versus Caesars seasoned veterans, and then LOST when the Senate (which was shockingly enough more than just Cicero) forced him to attack on THEIR terms. You might want to read a few things and know a little bit more before you try and offer a rebuttal to arguments. Oh and as for Napoleon...throw him in the over-rated category as well. Had his brillant moments, but had his blunders as well. I'd put Caesar ahead of him, but around 30 generals over Caesar. I'll accept that Caesar was a brillant politician and speaker, but to suddenly be a brilliant military commander with no prior experience essentially before Gaul? Not so much but nice try.

Ludens,
most modern militarys today have massive issues getting enough recruits without conscription...is that an issue due to population problems, or maybe some other factors? Think about it...

[QUOTE=Mulceber;2440526]It doesn't matter if they were career soldiers - Roman soldiers in Caesar's time still had to be citizens, and regardless of how many people there were living within the bounds of the Roman Empire, citizens were scarce enough that Rome had trouble mustering legions.

Thats funny, tell me where did Caesar raise I believe two (I could be wrong on this number, but pretty sure it was 2) of his legions from? Would that be the non-citizen Gauls perhaps...

hmmmm

L.C. SVLLA

03-02-2010, 07:24

ahh yeah buddy BA and MA Northwestern University, working on PHD at Penn State presently...might know just a little. And I'm sure macrille and I are hardly the only professional historians on this website. However I love on your big long reply that you say things like I said Egypt was a cakewalk...actually I never mentioned it. Same thing with Africa You might want to look back on what I have said previously. You are the one making grandiose claims with little supporting evidence, for example not knowing that yes Pompey DID defeat Caesar first on his terms, with relatively green troops versus Caesars seasoned veterans, and then LOST when the Senate (which was shockingly enough more than just Cicero) forced him to attack on THEIR terms. You might want to read a few things and know a little bit more before you try and offer a rebuttal to arguments. Oh and as for Napoleon...throw him in the over-rated category as well. Had his brillant moments, but had his blunders as well. I'd put Caesar ahead of him, but around 30 generals over Caesar. I'll accept that Caesar was a brillant politician and speaker, but to suddenly be a brilliant military commander with no prior experience essentially before Gaul? Not so much but nice try.

little supporting evidence, jade you do know those things happened right? and that if you're an accomplished scholar you should know this? Caesar was besieged in Egypt, that you must know correct? lol read up on adrian goldsworthy "Caesar" if you don't believe me, like i would make crap up in the first place! :) and you really are a history major? no lie, right? i mean reaally?

but to suddenly be a brilliant military commander with no prior experience essentially before Gaul? Not so much but nice try.

dang friend...you criticizing caesar for no military experience before Gaul... even though he was an officer in Asia minor organizing auxiliary to defend against the pontics...and successfully did so and he also killed pirates that captured him with a navy. and then you criticize Napoleon ? how could..how could you troll me so mercilessly bro? i thought WE WERE BRO'S!!

I'm just gonna step back and and help you out: you're gonna need to brush up on your history.

Madoushi

03-02-2010, 10:42

mrjade, meaning no offence and with all due respect sir, surely your arguements as a respected Bachelor and Master of Ancient History would be taken with more gravity if your grammar and punctuation exceeded that of your average high school dropout (which would be me). :grin:

And now, I shall stick my foot in my mouth.

I can't really say much of generalship, as I'm no historian, but I'm not sure how a bad General could subjugate a large part of Europe, unless he had some good generals under him, or the oppositions was weak, though I'm sure the situation was more complex than that.

However, his return from Elba and enlisting the troops sent to arrest him to me is an incredible story of confidence and charisma.

As for Alexander, I'd venture that he defeated himself. He repeatedly ignored his war weary troops (by pressing his attack in India), kept ten years away from their homes and with little desire for empire, he compounded his mistake by choosing the fastest, and one of the most dangerous, routes availiable (to get home), which may have contributed to his death.

SlickNicaG69

03-02-2010, 10:47

Mr. Jade criticizes because he is a person who is unable to give credit when credit is due. He is no scholar for scholars have no time to play games or reply to online video game posts or neglect the facts of history; if he does he would be categorized more as a scribe rather than a scholar for only they have time to indulge is such activities and fiddle with their pen so much. Anyone, regardless of expertise, who categorizes Caesar as being "overrated" is one who is ignorant of military matters and history, or who downgrades Caesar's military achievements. I've heard people say he wasn't good as "this" or "that" general before or after his time, but I don't think anyone of these generals mentioned, with the exception of Hannibal, could do the things he did from an inferior social position as Caesar had done - Pompey, Crassus, and the Senate all held more power than Caesar when he began his conquest. Alexander, Napoleon, and many other famous conquerors were rulers of their respective nations and commanded their resources by their own will, which many times gave them an advantage over their adversaries. By contrast, Caesar required the general approbation from Rome to conduct his conquest of Gaul. Because of his justification of defense, he could not obtain the resources for conquest from the Senate and instead had to derive them himself. In his battles he was almost always outnumbered and often experienced many negative circumstances, under which any general who was anything less than great would have succumbed (such as when a river flooded during his battle with Afranius in Spain, which caused him to encounter serious logistical problems). As I've said, Caesar wasn't great because he was flawless, but because in the end he prevailed!!! Why do we dare compare him with these other generals when SO MANY OF THEM whom you challenge him with lack this distinctive quality; Napoleon and Hannibal were defeated; Germanicus never subdued Germany; Alexander himself died without conquering lands he desired. Caesar, however, died a champion without a challenger. He died with the knowledge that no one, Roman or Barbarian, could raise an army and threaten him. So give the man his due. Don't say he is overrated. Say others are not rated enough. I, for one, esteem Aurelian amongst the top generals in Roman history, yet I know of no top-of-the-line resort hotels or modern-day cities bearing his name. But just because they bear Caesar's does not mean him to be overrated. It just gives him his dues!!!

Macilrille

03-02-2010, 11:30

Just popping in to say I have not forgotten you, but am doing other things. Will be back.

Meanwhile, Slickniga, I just skimmed your post, can you post in the "Great Roman Generals" why you favour Aurelian? The reconquests?

Titus Marcellus Scato

03-02-2010, 12:31

Some people should really think about why it was that Rome beat Carthage in the Second Punic War, but didn't conquer Gaul until Ceasar's time, 150 years later.

Perhaps it was because the Gauls weren't such an easy pushover after all. If it was that easy to conquer them, the Romans would have done so earlier.

Madoushi

03-02-2010, 14:23

All battles mentioned in the introduction are ranked among the most costly traditional battles of human history; in addition there were a few successful ambushes of armies that also ended in their annihilation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War

Sounds like the Romans and the Italian pennisula really took a beating. I'm sure that didn't help. Still, 150 years is a long time...

However..

Although Caesar portrayed this invasion as being a defensive pre-emptive action, most historians agree that the wars were fought primarily to boost Caesar's political career and to pay off his massive debts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars

Mulceber

03-02-2010, 16:09

Thats funny, tell me where did Caesar raise I believe two (I could be wrong on this number, but pretty sure it was 2) of his legions from? Would that be the non-citizen Gauls perhaps...

hmmmm

Thank you for bringing that up, as it helps my case: the two legions were raised from formerly non-citizen gauls. He gave them their citizenship specifically so that he could recruit them. A very Marian thing to do, giving out citizenship on massive scales. Regardless, this somewhat nontraditional strategy for acquiring soldiers merely reinforces my point - being a roman citizen was a prerequisite for service in the Roman military. -M

Ludens

03-02-2010, 16:10

This thread could do with a little less ad-hominem and a little more source referencing. Keep that in mind, please.

most modern militarys today have massive issues getting enough recruits without conscription...is that an issue due to population problems, or maybe some other factors? Think about it...

True, but I don't see how this invalidates my point.

BTW, please use the edit or multi-quote buttons when responding to multiple posts.

dang friend...you criticizing caesar for no military experience before Gaul... even though he was an officer in Asia minor organizing auxiliary to defend against the pontics...and successfully did so and he also killed pirates that captured him with a navy.

And he commanded an army while serving as Praetor in Iberia. IIRC he subjugated a few tribes in northern Iberia and got awarded a triumph for his efforts, but gave up the right to celebrate the triumph in order to run for the consulate. He won, and was awarded Gaul as province. The rest is history.

Mr Frost

03-02-2010, 21:55

...He is no scholar for scholars have no time to play games or reply to online video game posts or neglect the facts of history...!!!

The man whom was responsible for the depiction of the Ptolemy faction in E.B. is a professor of Ptolemeic history . One has to be quite scholarly to qualify for such a profession . Indeed , many of the E.B. team are professional historians of one kind or another and fair scholars by any reasonable measure .

A common theme amoungst these scholars is that they play the game they helped create . Another thing I've noted of them is that a fair few find the time to post on this video game forum .

You logic is flawed . You also use to many exclaimation marks .

SlickNicaG69

03-03-2010, 01:38

You logic is flawed . You also use to many exclaimation marks .

Unfortunately it appears your logic is the one that is flawed Mr. Frost because not only do you base your argument on a clear figurative statement, but you employ it to defend someone with the language of a spam mail message and who has no idea what the definition of a great general is!!!

And I have one question. How would you know if they play the game or if they were merely employed or volunteered to do so?

artaxerxes

03-04-2010, 14:39

Ceaser is not "overrated." He was great because he fought battles that only great men could win!!!

You're perfectly right. Your logic isn't flawed. It's gone altogether. I eat great biscuits. They're great because they're they taste great and thus they're the kind of biscuits that only great men eat. Therefore I am hereby to be known as 'The Great' :p

But not even Alexander risked his whole campaign and life to relieve the distress of a subordinate general. Not only that, but Caesar was not a king and had a greater authority than himself to answer to - the people and senate of Rome. It may be true that Caesar lost more battles (as I have not studied Alexander in detail I do not even know if he lost one), but as the saying goes: He was "not King, but Caesar!!!"

So Alexander is a bad general because this occasion didn't happen to him? Perhaps Alexander is also a fool because he didn't conquer Gaul? And I think you have a VERY black-and-white view of power: Alexander was king = he had unlimited power, so nothing he did is the least bit impressive + Caesar wasn't king = he had no power to start with whatsoever in any shape or form and anything he accomplished is pure miracle. A lot of people have had great power throughout history WITHOUT the fancy titles, so I don't really get what you think you prove anyhow.

Mr. Jade criticizes because he is a person who is unable to give credit when credit is due. He is no scholar for scholars have no time to play games or reply to online video game posts or neglect the facts of history

please read this sentence and think for yourself whether you're really proud of it. it doesnt even matter that he seems to BE a scholar. even if we, for the sake of argument, say that he isn't, just read this sentence and think about it

BTW coming from you, a complaint that someone's reply reads like

a spam mail message

is just so hilarious ;D

ALSO one of your rambling arguments (one of the few I could figure out) is also quite wrong, even if following your train of thought:

He died with the knowledge that no one, Roman or Barbarian, could raise an army and threaten him

No, he died being stabbed to death by people who could thus obviously threaten him. I personally don't think it takes anything away from Caesar that he was assassinated, but I also don't think it undermines Napoleon or Hannibal that they lost battles. You however have as criteria, that a great man prevails. Well here it is: obviously if Caesar had been the kind of great man (sounds a little fascist, but let's not talk about that) you think he is, shouldn't he have used his mighty abilities and foreseen the assassination attempt? isn't that EXACTLY the mark of these 'great men' - that they manouever around dangers that lesser men never saw coming?
By your logic, a greater Roman would be Sulla or Augustus, who overcame all that stood in their way - got to the pinnacle of power and remained there till their death of natural causes. Whether their beginnings were as unfortunate as you make Caesars out to be or whether their challenges were as great, well that shouldn't really be the point. If you think - very Nietzschean - that a great man is a man that prevails, then THEY should be given the title, for they got to the place where we all want to be - the swimming pools, hot girls, loads of money and absolute control of the world - and any who stood in their way suffered defeat. And they kept these conquests to their death - you could say that they left life unbeaten, whereas Caesar - for all his military victories - was finally beaten by an assassination attempt.

Dear mr. Nica, the man who died

with the knowledge that no one, Roman or Barbarian, could raise an army and threaten him
was Alexander - if we suppose that his death was natural, which I think is the most likely - since he had complete control of a military force that could arguably have defeated any contemporary army.

NeoSpartan

03-05-2010, 04:23

I wish I could add but my Historical studies focus from 1700-Present :book: at the undergrad level. (1more semester and I am done)

That is why I love there historical discussion threads!!!!! These threads along with the game itself have given me a B.A in Ancient History. :yes:

p.s any of you remember the "Celtics Overpower Thread"????? I think I have the link stored somewhere.

L.C. SVLLA

03-05-2010, 07:27

By your logic, a greater Roman would be Sulla or Augustus, who overcame all that stood in their way - got to the pinnacle of power and remained there till their death of natural causes

actually Sulla gave up his power before his death. just sayin' ! lol.

SlickNicaG69

03-05-2010, 12:11

Well Artaxerxes, (...) I will do as you did, and create a reply for every excerpt of your response which I disagree with. However, I will do so using the type of reason and rationale that conveys an honest interpretation of the subject, rather than a literal, superficial alteration that attempts to make my statement false:

You're perfectly right. Your logic isn't flawed. It's gone altogether. I eat great biscuits. They're great because they're they taste great and thus they're the kind of biscuits that only great men eat. Therefore I am hereby to be known as 'The Great' :p

Actually, if you managed to eat the type of biscuits that great men eat, you still would not become yourself a great man because you lack the genes that great men use to process such biscuits to their full potential and produce the "great excrement" that completes the process.

So Alexander is a bad general because this occasion didn't happen to him? Perhaps Alexander is also a fool because he didn't conquer Gaul?

I never said that. I was reinforcing my argument by beaming light on the fact that DESPITE Alexander's greatness, there were still things that Caesar did himself that neither Alexander, Napoleon, Scipio, or many other great generals did, and which would have been greatly admired by such generals, that don't pertain to mere circumstantial facts, but rather transcendent military behavior.

(...)

Alexander was king = he had unlimited power, so nothing he did is the least bit impressive + Caesar wasn't king = he had no power to start with whatsoever in any shape or form and anything he accomplished is pure miracle.

Your simplifying my arguments to much bro. Quit breaking them down into logical equations. I never said anything of which you infer. I said that Caesar simply was not the most powerful man of his state. He didn't depend on the full amount of resources of his state to accomplish his goals. I never said he had no power nor that his accomplishments were miracles. I actually said the exact opposite.

A lot of people have had great power throughout history WITHOUT the fancy titles, so I don't really get what you think you prove anyhow.

Yea like you and your biscuit.

please read this sentence and think for yourself whether you're really proud of it. it doesnt even matter that he seems to BE a scholar. even if we, for the sake of argument, say that he isn't, just read this sentence and think about it

If a scholar can't write legibly or in decent grammar, then he is not a scholar. I think some famous guy said that... o yea... his name was Aristotle.

(...)

I personally don't think it takes anything away from Caesar that he was assassinated, but I also don't think it undermines Napoleon or Hannibal that they lost battles.

I never said it undermined them to lose battles; it was their losing the war. Caesar was greater than them because he always eventually won, unlike them.

(...)

You however have as criteria, that a great man prevails. Well here it is: obviously if Caesar had been the kind of great man you think he is, shouldn't he have used his mighty abilities and foreseen the assassination attempt? isn't that EXACTLY the mark of these 'great men' - that they manouever around dangers that lesser men never saw coming?

No, I never said Caesar was God. Can I get a w.t.h.?

By your logic, a greater Roman would be Sulla or Augustus,

I guess you could compare Sulla as a general to Caesar, but not really if you're serious. And Augustus was not a general, he was Rome's greatest politician.

Whether their beginnings were as unfortunate as you make Caesars out to be or whether their challenges were as great, well that shouldn't really be the point.

Yes, it is exactly the point what you said (...). All great generals are made great because of the great odds that they met against them, AND STILL WON!!! :help:

If you think - very Nietzschean -

I have no idea who that is...

that a great man is a man that prevails, then THEY should be given the title, for they got to the place where we all want to be - the swimming pools, hot girls, loads of money and absolute control of the world - and any who stood in their way suffered defeat. And they kept these conquests to their death - you could say that they left life unbeaten, whereas Caesar - for all his military victories - was finally beaten by an assassination attempt.

I like how you support my argument and at the same time refute it. Caesar had all those things. He had the conquests. He left unbeaten in war [not battles if you don't catch my drift (see I'm helping you out here Nitskee!)]. An assassination is not a defeat of war, it's an act of treachery (...).

Alexander - if we suppose that his death was natural, which I think is the most likely - since he had complete control of a military force that could arguably have defeated any contemporary army.

If you think a group of men with sticks and stones can defeat a group of men with guns and bombs, then my friend... I rest my case.