Ok, I could maybe buy the notion that Caesar wasn't an Alexander or a Hannibal when it came to battlefield tactics, but AVERAGE GENERAL ABILITY??? Bullshit. He had some battles that didn't go particularly well, yes, but this guy is definitely above average. And I think you're forgetting the fact that, strategically (as opposed to tactically), Caesar was probably the equal of any general who ever lived - certainly better than Hannibal, who wasn't able to string his amazing battlefield victories together into a successful campaign.Very clever + average general ability + luck + great staff support + outstanding legions = Caesar
Also, you argue that part of it was his outstanding legions, but how do you think those legions got to be so extraordinary? Caesar didn't inherit them in that condition, they BECAME that way over the course of his campaigns in Gaul. So during Caesar's early campaigns at least, he didn't have the quality of his legions to rely on.
I wouldn't write off Caesar's luck either - it wasn't just that he rolled the dice and won; Caesar gambled on himself, but the reason he always ended up winning (the exception being 3/15) was because he usually stacked the deck in his favor so to speak - he'd put forth every effort to gain every advantage so that when he did roll the dice, the odds were in his favor. -M
Bookmarks