Is Caesar overrated as general?

[Power2the1]

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.