Is Caesar overrated as general?

[Mulceber]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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

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]

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

[geala]

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]

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]

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]

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 distinctively remember there was a mountain pass to the Persian capital and he ordered a frontal assault on the defenders and got ambushed and was forced to retreat and look for another way around tho...

[Macilrille]

You are probably thinking of The Battle for The Persian Gates, but after the initial ambush and repulse Alexander won the battle.

[Macilrille]

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)

I point you in the direction of any history on Rome, even Mc'Kay's "History of Western Societ" mentions it on p 150 ff in its grand discourse on world history. No it was not that army life was not attractive, it was a dearth of manpower in Rome. If you have time, read the books I listed above as well and you will see how significant the problem was.

[mrjade06]

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...

[L.C. SVLLA]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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!!!