Is Caesar overrated as general?

[Intranetusa]

I have to commend Caesar for being able to write a book bragging about how he lead a large army of well equipped and well trained professional soldiers from a nation with huge resources and manpower in order to defeat a dying Gallic tribe of barely equipped, half starved, and poorly trained farmers led by a person in charge of a nation who had to rebel against his own nobility since they supported the Romans...whose nation was already falling apart and dirt poor from centuries of civil war with other Gallic tribes, as well as essentially being a Roman tributary.

[seienchin]

I have to commend Caesar for being able to write a book bragging about how he lead a large army of well equipped and well trained professional soldiers from a nation with huge resources and manpower in order to defeat a dying Gallic tribe of barely equipped, half starved, and poorly trained farmers led by a person in charge of a nation who had to rebel against his own nobility since they supported the Romans...whose nation was already falling apart and dirt poor from centuries of civil war with other Gallic tribes, as well as essentially being a Roman tributary.

Maybe you should read more about the gallic wars... There is no evidence that the gallic tribes were half starved poorly trained farmers or are you talking about the battle of bibracte? Please dont tell me you mean Vercincetorix uprising...

[Mulceber]

Maybe you should read more about the gallic wars... There is no evidence that the gallic tribes were half starved poorly trained farmers or are you talking about the battle of bibracte? Please dont tell me you mean Vercincetorix uprising...

Agreed. The whole point of this mod is that all the cultures are valid. The Gauls deserve better. -M

[Intranetusa]

Maybe you should read more about the gallic wars... There is no evidence that the gallic tribes were half starved poorly trained farmers or are you talking about the battle of bibracte? Please dont tell me you mean Vercincetorix uprising...

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.

[SwissBarbar]

Yes, that's why I said, that Caesar is not a great general because of his victories over the gauls, but because of his victories over pompeius

[Macilrille]

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]

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

[Macilrille]

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

[Intranetusa]

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]

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