Quote Originally Posted by caesar44
1. in the bottom line caesar took gergovia so what are we talking about
In fact, he never did succeed in taking Gergovia.

2. dyrrahachium was just a prolog for farsalus and we all know what happened there
That was quite an ingenious answer. The loss of 32 standards, being forced to retreat into unfriendly territory, and the near entrapment and destruction of Domitius's forces says otherwise. So does Caesar, for that matter; even he was ready to admit that Dyrrhachium could have been the end of him.

3. a first ever expedition to britania and you call it a failure , caesar achieved exactly what he wants - to cut off the supply line from britania to gaul
Question: If the first mission was such a success, then why did he have to go there again the year after? Even the Ancient authors (e.g., Plutarch who I quote on the subject in the article above) didn't buy that one.

Of course I almost forgot Ruspina; as usual glossed over in the Commentaries, but yet another battle in which Caesar is badly beaten and only saved from total destruction by the incompetence of his opponents. The battle apparently made the term "Caesar's Luck" proverbial for a while (cf. Appian).

And while luck is a great attribute for a General to have, it doesn't change the fact that Caesar was beaten - repeatedly.

but we should remember that he beaten hanibaal 17 years after his italian expedition , in this 17 years the punics lost everything they had (italy , hispania , sicily most of africa and so on)
And, this affects the discussion how?

hanibaal of 201 is not hanibaal of 218 ,
True enough; Hannibal of 202 was a vastly more experienced commander than Hannibal in 218, and thus a far better General when Scipio met him at Zama than he had been at Cannae.