Results 1 to 30 of 72

Thread: Is Caesar overrated as general?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member Member seienchin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    588
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    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...

  2. #2
    CAIVS CAESAR Member Mulceber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    548

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Quote Originally Posted by seienchin View Post
    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
    My Balloons:

  3. #3
    Member Member Intranetusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Quote Originally Posted by seienchin View Post
    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.
    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind...but there is one thing that science cannot accept - and that is a personal God who meddles in the affairs of his creation."
    -Albert Einstein




  4. #4
    Legatvs Member SwissBarbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Helvetia
    Posts
    1,905

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    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
    Balloon-Count: x 15


    Many thanks to Hooahguy for this great sig.

  5. #5
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Macilrille; 02-20-2010 at 12:47.
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  6. #6
    CAIVS CAESAR Member Mulceber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    548

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

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

  7. #7
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Thanks, but I dunno, Intranetusa might have acces to information I have not come across and can thus enlighten my possible lack of knowledge.
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  8. #8

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    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.
    I shall enlighten.

    There are many sources that refer to the pre-Caesarian conflict in Gaul. People often make the mistake in defining the war in Gaul with total war (which Gauls did NOT do) vs. military depletion on the battlefield. Theres a big difference in this as the former refers to total destruction basically anything of value including sometimes non combatants. The latter is primarily focused on the the actual fighters and those in the military. Anyway, source info:

    The Druids and Romanization:

    Such an approximation of national unity must be
    sought in the period before 121 B.C., at the latest, for in that
    year the pan-Gallic confederation led by the Arverni was destroyed
    by Rome.18 This blow was followed by the invasions
    of the Teutons and Cimbri, which left Gaul desolate and further
    disunited.19 Subsequently a trend toward republican
    government becomes historically recognizable; 20 the result of
    forces, perhaps, that had been at work for some time. And
    whereas kings, through a system of alliances, or under the
    hegemony of one acknowledged leader, were apparently able
    to maintain a certain degree of national unity, the nobility,
    which supported the new constitutional governments, tended
    to confine its political vision to its particular state. Thus, as
    we know, in Caesar's time Gaul was split into warring factions.
    21 To this latter period, following a half-century of
    poverty, strife, and political change
    , the idealized Druidism
    can hardly belong; it is rather to be referred to a period when
    the peace and unity of Gaul made possible a pan-Gallic
    organization.
    The Germans of Caesar:

    These same Helvetians had
    recently proved themselves no match for the Romans, and if
    Ariovistus had defeated the Gauls it was after they had been exhausted
    by internal struggles
    , and, further, it had been more by
    strategy than valour.
    Caesar's Strategy in the Gallic War states:
    The Gauls....For the most part
    they were not veterans, but men hastily levied for a specific purpose
    .
    The speed with which they mustered great numbers was equaled
    only by the speed of their dispersal, often rendered imperative through
    lack of supplies...On the other hand is a force often overwhelmingly
    superior in numbers, spurred on by rash courage and love of country,
    but yet undisciplined, inexperienced in Roman warfare, badly organized,
    ill furnished with supplies, and following now this leader and
    now that until the encroaching progress of the Romans and the
    genius of Vercingetorix welded all factions together in a last stand
    for Gallic freedom
    The Gallic War says:

    he (Vercingetorix) did not however desist, but held in the country a levy of the needy and desperate. Having collected such a body of troops, he brings over to his sentiments such of his fellow-citizens as he has access to: he exhorts them to take up arms in behalf of the general freedom, and having assembled great forces he drives from the state his opponents, by whom he had been expelled a short time previously.
    that with these the Aedui and their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms - that they had been routed, and had sustained a great calamity - had lost all their nobility, all their senate, all their cavalry
    obviously they did not loose*all* against the Germans, but they must have lost quite a few and this was before Caesar went against them

    "That there were two parties in the whole of Gaul: that the Aedui stood at the head of one of these, the Arverni of the other. After these had been violently struggling with one another for the superiority for many years
    when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valor.
    Note that this is against the Germans, on top of what losses they sustained against the Arverni and Sequani

    O' Hogain The Celts A History and Celtic Warriors here:

    By this time the Celtic World was under great pressure, and this is reflected by the civil wars between the inhabitants of Transalpine Gaul.

    Theres more than this in fact. However, I have yet to see a source that says Gaul was a land without resource and wealth. The war between the Aedui, Averni, and Sequani was directed at the combatants mainly (although Caesar turned it into a butchery contest and brought the war against the innocent), and little in the Gallic War or other sources supports that the war carried itself needlessly far into the environment or food supply. The Gallic aristocracy and veteran warrior class is what would have done most/all of the fighting, and that also means most/all of the dying too. By the time Caesar came around, he was not fighting the 'cream of the crop', but what was mainly left of it. Of course hunger would have been a factor in some areas hit, but I do not read that large scale famine and that kind of thing occurred.
    Last edited by Power2the1; 02-20-2010 at 16:07.

  9. #9
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    There are many sources that refer to the pre-Caesarian conflict in Gaul. People often make the mistake in defining the war in Gaul with total war (which Gauls did NOT do) vs. military depletion on the battlefield. Theres a big difference in this as the former refers to total destruction basically anything of value including sometimes non combatants. The latter is primarily focused on the the actual fighters and those in the military.
    Yes, as I said, the anthropologists has a fancy name for it, but I forgot- my brain is not working properly today. However, I fail to see this and your last statement as contradicting me. Except that I find it hard to believe that all the top-level warriors were gone. In my interpretation of things, the constant internal strife within the Gallic and especially German tribes and lands would keep the warriors well-trained and used to war. Veterans of a sort, and the urbanisation that preceeded the Roman takeover would be (as is the traditional interpretation of urbanisation) a step in the centralisation and strengthening of State(s).

    I fail to see the sources for your quote 1, and do not know where you found it. What is his sources? If "A Short History of the Roman Republic" by W. E. Heitland; Cambridge University Press, 1911 I am sorry, but much new evidence and interpretations has been presented since then, so I do not know it it is much more valid than Gibbon's thesis on the collapse of Rome. It may be, but I find it suspect.


    The quote on Ariovistus I believe would be this one
    If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valor.
    in this translation.

    However it is part of a much larger content, so let us look at that and apply the Historian's trademark, source criticism.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Chapter 39

    While he is tarrying a few days at Vesontio, on account of corn and provisions; from the inquiries of our men and the reports of the Gauls and traders (who asserted that the Germans were men of huge stature, of incredible valor and practice in arms - that oftentimes they, on encountering them, could not bear even their countenance, and the fierceness of their eyes) - so great a panic on a sudden seized the whole army, as to discompose the minds and spirits of all in no slight degree. This first arose from the tribunes of the soldiers, the prefects and the rest, who, having followed Caesar from the city [Rome] from motives of friendship, had no great experience in military affairs. And alleging, some of them one reason, some another, which they said made it necessary for them to depart, they requested that by his consent they might be allowed to withdraw; some, influenced by shame, stayed behind in order that they might avoid the suspicion of cowardice. These could neither compose their countenance, nor even sometimes check their tears: but hidden in their tents, either bewailed their fate, or deplored with their comrades the general danger. Wills were sealed universally throughout the whole camp. By the expressions and cowardice of these men, even those who possessed great experience in the camp, both soldiers and centurions, and those [the decurions] who were in command of the cavalry, were gradually disconcerted. Such of them as wished to be considered less alarmed, said that they did not dread the enemy, but feared the narrowness of the roads and the vastness of the forests which lay between them and Ariovistus, or else that the supplies could not be brought up readily enough. Some even declared to Caesar, that when he gave orders for the camp to be moved and the troops to advance, the soldiers would not be obedient to the command, nor advance in consequence of their fear.

    Chapter 40

    When Caesar observed these things, having called a council, and summoned to it the centurions of all the companies, he severely reprimanded them, "particularly, for supposing that it belonged to them to inquire or conjecture, either in what direction they were marching, or with what object. That Ariovistus, during his [Caesar's] consulship, had most anxiously sought after the friendship of the Roman people; why should any one judge that he would so rashly depart from his duty? He for his part was persuaded, that, when his demands were known and the fairness of the terms considered, he would reject neither his nor the Roman people's favor. But even if, driven on by rage and madness, he should make war upon them, what after all were they afraid of? - or why should they despair either of their own valor or of his zeal? Of that enemy a trial had been made within our fathers' recollection, when, on the defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones by Caius Marius, the army was regarded as having deserved no less praise than their commander himself. It had been made lately, too, in Italy, during the rebellion of the slaves, whom, however, the experience and training which they had received from us, assisted in some respect. From which a judgment might be formed of the advantages which resolution carries with it inasmuch as those whom for some time they had groundlessly dreaded when unarmed, they had afterward vanquished, when well armed and flushed with success. In short, that these were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet can not have been a match for our army. If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valor. But though there had been room for such stratagem against savage and unskilled men, not even [Ariovistus] himself expected that thereby our armies could be entrapped. That those who ascribed their fear to a pretense about the [deficiency of] supplies and the narrowness of the roads, acted presumptuously, as they seemed either to distrust their general's discharge of his duty, or to dictate to him. That these things were his concern; that the Sequani, the Leuci, and the Lingones were to furnish the corn; and that it was already ripe in the fields; that as to the road they would soon be able to judge for themselves. As to its being reported that the soldiers would not be obedient to command, or advance, he was not at all disturbed at that; for he knew, that in the case of all those whose army had not been obedient to command, either upon some mismanagement of an affair, fortune had deserted them, or, that upon some crime being discovered, covetousness had been clearly proved [against them]. His integrity had been seen throughout his whole life, his good fortune in the war with the Helvetii. That he would therefore instantly set about what he had intended to put off till a more distant day, and would break up his camp the next night, in the fourth watch, that he might ascertain, as soon as possible, whether a sense of honor and duty, or whether fear had more influence with them. But that, if no one else should follow, yet he would go with only the tenth legion, of which he had no misgivings, and it should be his praetorian cohort." This legion Caesar had both greatly favored, and in it, on account of its valor, placed the greatest confidence.

    Chapter 41

    Upon the delivery of this speech, the minds of all were changed in a surprising manner, and the highest ardor and eagerness for prosecuting the war were engendered; and the tenth legion was the first to return thanks to him, through their military tribunes, for his having expressed this most favorable opinion of them; and assured him that they were quite ready to prosecute the war. Then, the other legions endeavored, through their military tribunes and the centurions of the principal companies, to excuse themselves to Caesar, [saying] that they had never either doubted or feared, or supposed that the determination of the conduct of the war was theirs and not their general's. Having accepted their excuse, and having had the road carefully reconnoitered by Divitiacus, because in him of all others he had the greatest faith [he found] that by a circuitous route of more than fifty miles he might lead his army through open parts; he then set out in the fourth watch, as he had said [he would]. On the seventh day, as he did not discontinue his march, he was informed by scouts that the forces of Ariovistus were only four and twenty miles distant from ours.


    Now, of course it is all part of the larger context of showing the danger of the Germans in order to justify Caesar's actions against them, and highlight his skill as a commander. However, there can be little doubt that there was fear in the advancing Roman army. Not only is there always some sense of fear before battle, but there was also the well-known "Barbarian Fear" of Romans, most especially they feared the wild Germans, partly because they were largely an unknown factor and we always tend to let our imagination run wild about such. So, caesar gives a speech in which he calms the fears of the soldiers. he does this by making light of the Germans' prowess saying that they themselves had beaten the helvetii who often beat the germans, and that only the exhaustion of a long war had allowed them to beat the Aedui (though of course the Suebi campaigning away from their homelands would have been at least as bad off, living on campaign...). he then goes on to other encouragements. However, the crucial thing in his eulogi is the context. In such contexts exaggerations were often used, not least by Caesar (and in this very speech as well). It can be compared to the belief before "Market garden" and "Wacht am Rhein" that Germany was devoid of resources and had only boys and old men for defence. So as I see it, this is no evidence of how things were. the Aedui might have been weak, but were they more weak than usual and would their manpower have suffered worse than what the past three generations of Roman bloodletting had? We have no idea from this quote.


    As for Caesar's Strategy in the Gallic War I must again ask for its sources and age. What sources makes its author state as he does? Where does he have his information from? It also sound pretty high on the rhetorical (and possibly biased) side, but that may just be sugaring the pill (most historians write as boringly as I), but blanket statements full of rhetoric... It is not my cup of tea. To me, it looks suspect and he states no sources at all. As long as he does not, I have to dismiss it again.

    Vercingetorix' levy is the most convincing hint. However, right before he is menyioned, lots of other nobles are and as the carnutes operate effectively already with their traditional warbands of nobles, this might again be rhetorics for the reason of underlining Caesar's deeds. It may also be by the simple explanation that in order to oppose the Legions the normal small elite warbands will not suffice and a levy has to be raised. This is the usual practise of barbarians after all, who cannot afford large standing armies. In fact Vercingetorix starts by summoning his dependents, IE the minor nobles in his alliance depending on his leadership and forming his retinue. the word desperate might be a mere trick of the author to show the folly of resisting Caesar. Thus, though tantalising, that quote presents us with no evidence that Gaul was exhausted, starving and depleted of warriors, and certainly not that the bloodletting in Gaul before the invasion was worse than that in Italy.

    O' Hogain is right though. The germans and Romans both made inroad in the Celtic world and this might have led to internal strife, but external pressure is one of the things that is important in the formation of states; the communication of autopoietic systems if you will. And the combination Celtic-German did also lead to at least one very strong and thriving tribe, the Marcomanni, not merely to the annihilation of the Celts.

    that has little to do with the original bones of contention:

    1) Whether gaul was devoid of warriors and resources and Caesar thus merely had to waltz in and take what he wished from the few starving inhabitants. And thus Caesar not being a great general at all.

    2) Whether the bloodletting in Gaul, which P2T1 has hinted might have been worse than usual in the last century before the conquest (but merely hinted), was worse than that of the late Roman Republic.

    And in none of these do I see us actually contradict each other.

    So thanks, but I feel little more enlightened than before and eagerly await Intranetusa's analysis and evidence on which he builds his statements.


    Sorry, my shift key is not as it should be.
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  10. #10
    Member Member Intranetusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    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.
    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind...but there is one thing that science cannot accept - and that is a personal God who meddles in the affairs of his creation."
    -Albert Einstein




  11. #11
    CAIVS CAESAR Member Mulceber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    548

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    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
    Last edited by Mulceber; 02-22-2010 at 09:22.
    My Balloons:

  12. #12
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Your argument seems twofold, first the population issue.

    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.
    Now, I did not in fact talk only of the 2nd Punic War- 2nd Macedonian War as I thought was evident in mentioning Arausio. In fact manpower was a persistent problem for Rome from the 2nd Punic War onwards. It is evident in Brunt's 800+ pages analysis "Italian Manpower", and his shorter "Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic" where he summs up and elaborates. It also permeates all our ancient sources and even the most basic high school textbook on Roman history mentions it. Perhaps you believe the Romans to win all their wars with few losses, but such was not the case. Look up Quintus Pompeius, Gaius Hostilius Mancinus, Gnaeus Papirius Carbo and Quintus Servilius Caepio should you think so. And that is merely a short list.

    Fact is, Rome was always short on manpower as they started to expand, even Marius' reforms did not alleviate this in the long run. Granting citizenship to all Italy did slightly, but only for a while, for Italy too, was bled white. It is difficult indeed to replenish your manpower when all your free farmers have died in war, their farms been sold and their land is now tilled by slaves of some patrician's Latifundie. That is basically what happened.
    How can you not acknowledge this when it is commonly acknowledged to be one of the major causes for the fall of the Republic?

    Instead you repeat the argument that there was "centuries of bloody warfare" in Gaul. More bloody than Rome's? More bloody than anywhere around the Med till the Romans enforced Pax Romana for that matter?
    What are your sources for this? P2T1 has already mentioned sources that I by and large dismissed, can you bring new ones to light? It is hard to lend credibility to blanket statements with no sources.
    As I also mentioned earlier, low-level warfare was an integral fact of life for the northern barbarians. Every account we have of the Germans for example, mentions it, and it did not seem to hinder their ability to wage war on their neighbours. Quite the contrary; it kept their warriors lean and mean. So warfare was an integral part of the way of life for Gauls and Germans, we know this. How was the last century more bloody than the preceeding ones? And how more bloody than Rome's and for that matter Germany's? And if this was so, why do we see an increase in urbanisation?

    Mulceber has already adressed your alleged failed invasions of Germany and Britain. No Roman was stupid enough to launch any invasion anywhere with an eye on conquest without their logistical base firmly secure and ample supply for the armies ready. All our sources and all analysis shows this, Caesar would not have invaded either without it. So Mulceber is right, Caesar was merely making demonstrations, and successfully so. It even secured him German allies, not a bad thing, and typical Roman to keep a buffer between them and their enemies.

    You add no new arguments to P2T1'a, and he cited sources, so please have a look above for me refutation of the statement that Vercingetorix had to summon the poor and needy only. There is plenty of evidence that other nobles were also rebelling. But such is merely natural in such a situation. Some nobles will see the advantage of allying themselves with Rome, other in resisting it. For comparison, look at the events of A.D. 9; before he annihilated Varus, Arminus held/attended a feast/meeting of Cherusci nobles. Some were pro-Roman (Segestes and his faction), some were pro-rebel. In fact Arminus' brother Flavius kept faith with Rome all through the campaigns of Germanicus, and his uncle Ingiumerus only joined late. In germanicus' campaign too, it is seen how Arminus rouse the tribes to battle, high and low. So if you compare the rebel leaders, their situation is remarkably similar. Both face resistance from other nobles, but also support. I bet you if we look (could look) at other Roman wars you would se pro- and anti-Romans in them; Divide and conquer...

    No, I maintain that Caesar was a great general as he succeeded in forming an army that was absolutely and almost fanatically loyal to him, and with it to defeat:
    Barbarian War-host
    Guerrilla in rough terrain with little infrastructure
    A Roman army under an acknowledges great general (by his peers, Pompeius)
    Roman armies with N African and Iberian flavour, both had proven difficult to others commanders.

    Further he was superb in selecting junior officers, another sign of a great commander.

    He also had a vision for Rome and its empire, but that is more the political arena.

    To me, Caesar was a great commander and you will have to come up with some more substantial evidence than unsupported statements to convince me otherwise. Sorry, and sorry too if I seem arrogant. That is by no means the intension.
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  13. #13
    Member Member Intranetusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parallel Pain View Post
    @Intranetusa
    I have to say that is not the best point to argue against Caesar. It has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread that the Gallic Wars are not Caesar's only triumph. He did pretty much completely flatten all opposition in the Civil Wars.
    Also he killing off all remaining resistence has nothing to do with military ability. Was it cruel? Sure. But it was a more or less exceptable practice. And it would only darken his reputation as a conqueror, not as a military genius.
    I agree. But why don't we ever learn about Caesar's other battles as opposed to the Gallic Wars?

    IMO, the Gallic Wars are one of the least significant achievements of Caesar. It was an asymmetrical war and a total pushover.

    Probably the main reason why it's so popular is because Caesar wrote a book about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    Your argument seems twofold, first the population issue.Now, I did not in fact talk only of the 2nd Punic War- 2nd Macedonian War as I thought was evident in mentioning Arausio. In fact manpower was a persistent problem for Rome from the 2nd Punic War onwards. It is evident in Brunt's 800+ pages analysis "Italian Manpower", and his shorter "Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic" where he summs up and elaborates. It also permeates all our ancient sources and even the most basic high school textbook on Roman history mentions it. Perhaps you believe the Romans to win all their wars with few losses, but such was not the case. Look up Quintus Pompeius, Gaius Hostilius Mancinus, Gnaeus Papirius Carbo and Quintus Servilius Caepio should you think so. And that is merely a short list.
    Sure, Rome was short on manpower for their well trained, well equipped soldiers. But how many well trained, well equipped soldiers did Vercingetorix have - as opposed to how many of them were barely trained, poorly equipped levies?

    I'm sure Rome could have organized a giant levy army of all able bodied males if the situation was dire enough.

    I'd say the population issue is relative...Rome may have been short on manpower, but so was everyone else they fought...and probably Rome's enemies to a greater degree.



    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    Fact is, Rome was always short on manpower as they started to expand, even Marius' reforms did not alleviate this in the long run. Granting citizenship to all Italy did slightly, but only for a while, for Italy too, was bled white. It is difficult indeed to replenish your manpower when all your free farmers have died in war, their farms been sold and their land is now tilled by slaves of some patrician's Latifundie. That is basically what happened. How can you not acknowledge this when it is commonly acknowledged to be one of the major causes for the fall of the Republic?
    I think you're oversimplifying latifunads and exaggerating the population issue in relations to it.

    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.

    How many people died in the brief civil wars before Caesar's time? They were a drop in the bucket compared to Rome's total population and after taking into consideration how fast Rome's population rebounded.



    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    Instead you repeat the argument that there was "centuries of bloody warfare" in Gaul. More bloody than Rome's? More bloody than anywhere around the Med till the Romans enforced Pax Romana for that matter?
    Did Roman wars or civil wars last centuries? Prolonged constant warfare is always far worse brief intense wars. When a war is dragged out over a long period of time, resources and population are depleted and there is no opportunity to replenish them.
    This is in contrast to Rome, which did not have continuous wars.


    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    As I also mentioned earlier, low-level warfare was an integral fact of life for the northern barbarians. Every account we have of the Germans for example, mentions it, and it did not seem to hinder their ability to wage war on their neighbours. Quite the contrary; it kept their warriors lean and mean. So warfare was an integral part of the way of life for Gauls and Germans, we know this. How was the last century more bloody than the preceeding ones? And how more bloody than Rome's and for that matter Germany's? And if this was so, why do we see an increase in urbanisation?
    That's another reason why the Gauls didn't really stand a chance against the Romans. A fractured, essentially non-agrarian nations constantly fighting each other for power, with less resources and the ability to wage war compared to the Romans.


    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    Mulceber has already adressed your alleged failed invasions of Germany and Britain. No Roman was stupid enough to launch any invasion anywhere with an eye on conquest without their logistical base firmly secure and ample supply for the armies ready. All our sources and all analysis shows this, Caesar would not have invaded either without it. So Mulceber is right, Caesar was merely making demonstrations, and successfully so. It even secured him German allies, not a bad thing, and typical Roman to keep a buffer between them and their enemies.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    You add no new arguments to P2T1'a, and he cited sources, so please have a look above for me refutation of the statement that Vercingetorix had to summon the poor and needy only. There is plenty of evidence that other nobles were also rebelling. But such is merely natural in such a situation. Some nobles will see the advantage of allying themselves with Rome, other in resisting it. For comparison, look at the events of A.D. 9; before he annihilated Varus, Arminus held/attended a feast/meeting of Cherusci nobles. Some were pro-Roman (Segestes and his faction), some were pro-rebel. In fact Arminus' brother Flavius kept faith with Rome all through the campaigns of Germanicus, and his uncle Ingiumerus only joined late. In germanicus' campaign too, it is seen how Arminus rouse the tribes to battle, high and low. So if you compare the rebel leaders, their situation is remarkably similar. Both face resistance from other nobles, but also support. I bet you if we look (could look) at other Roman wars you would se pro- and anti-Romans in them; Divide and conquer...
    I never said he summoned the poor and needy only. I said the majority of his army was not the well trained soldiers or the nobility - the majority were the untrained levies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
    No, I maintain that Caesar was a great general as he succeeded in forming an army that was absolutely and almost fanatically loyal to him, and with it to defeat:Barbarian War-hostGuerrilla in rough terrain with little infrastructure...Further he was superb in selecting junior officers, another sign of a great commander.He also had a vision for Rome and its empire, but that is more the political arena....
    As those above have mentioned, I would agree with the idea that Caesar was a better politician than general. His achievements in the Civil War were notable. But to me, the Gallic Wars were not, and entirely overrated.

    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.
    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind...but there is one thing that science cannot accept - and that is a personal God who meddles in the affairs of his creation."
    -Albert Einstein




  14. #14
    Member Member Intranetusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulceber View Post
    None of which translate to a larger body of citizens. More people under your command? Yes. More citizens? No.
    More farmland, more wealth - those factors lead to an increase in population growth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulceber View Post
    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.
    I don't doubt Rome lost a good portion of their population. But Rome went to war every few generations, and it was by no means constant. Rome is an agrarian civilization which was able to repopulate their borders rather quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulceber View Post
    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.
    Caesar''s first landing in Britain was a complete failure. 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.

    So in regards to Britain, if they were invasions, Caesar failed. If they were just mere power-projection maneuvers, Caesar still failed.

    As for the German invasion, you are correct. Caesar didn't actually attempt an invasion. He just built a bridge to show the few German tribes along the Rhine that he could easily cross the river.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulceber View Post
    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.
    Yes, and by the time they united against Rome, wasn't it far too late? By Caesar's time, it was the mid 1st century CE. Rome's population had already reached over 5 million. Rome was already the only major power left in the western Mediterranean.
    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.

    Like I said, it was entirely an asymmetrical war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulceber View Post
    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
    Or they criticized Caesar for starting something rather senseless and using troops and resources to hasten what was inevitable anyways.
    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind...but there is one thing that science cannot accept - and that is a personal God who meddles in the affairs of his creation."
    -Albert Einstein




  15. #15
    CAIVS CAESAR Member Mulceber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    548

    Default Re: Who was the best Roman general?

    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
    Last edited by Mulceber; 02-22-2010 at 23:57.
    My Balloons:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO