Is Caesar overrated as general?

[Macilrille]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

I wish I could add but my Historical studies focus from 1700-Present 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.

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

[L.C. SVLLA]

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]

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!!!

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.

[Ludens]

This thread is in need of a cool-down. I am closing it now. If you wish it reopened, let me know through PM or my profile page.

Thread closed.