Is Caesar overrated as general?

[Macilrille]

Yes, I mean Vercingetorix. By the time Caesar came around, the Gallic tribes were exhausted from centuries of civil war. Most of their good warriors were dead and their resources exhausted.

The army Vercingetorix raised was mostly a rag tag band of barely trained farmers who had just beat their farming tools into spears...especially during his revolt against his own nobility. Whatever well equipped and well trained warriors he did have were few in number. I'm sure the number of actual warriors in his army increased later on, but I'd say most of his army wasn't exactly well trained nor well equipped.

As for half starving, the Gauls were short on supplies resources. And they were pretty much starved-to-death by the time Caesar won Alesia.


IMO, Caesar's victories are entirely overrated since it was entirely an asymettrical war. Rome near its post-Marian Republican height with far more resources, manpower, etc VS the Gallic tribes who were half dead from fighting each other and many of which had already essentially become Roman tributaries.

I am, to say the least, very interested in your sources for this?

I am also a bit puzzled at how everybody here inevitably claims that it whenever one of Rome's famous victories gets mentioned they always ascribe it not to skill, organisation and training, but always to manpower, as if Rome was a sort of antique version of 1940 USSR.
Throughout the late Republic, from the Grachii and on to the early empire manpower was always a great problem for Romans in raising armies. In his volumnious study of Roman manpower that I have mentioned several times, Brunt concludes:

1) In the 2nd Punic War Rome lost 20- 25% of its manpower. This means that the argument that Rome only defeated mighty Macedonia because mighty Macedonia had been involved in centuries of warfare and intercinene strife, depleting its manpower is moot. With 25% of its men of fighting age dead, Rome was at least as depleted as Macedonia, nor were the men fighting the 2nd Macedonian re-enlisted veterans (Evocatii), according to Brunt, only one legion consisted of such men.

2) At the time of The Civil Wars, manpower was again a problem after 2-3 generations of bloody wars and civil wars, and many legions were quite low on manpower. Much like, if not as bad (I do not have Brunt to hand, so I do not remember the actual numbers), the German "Shadow Dvisions" of late WWII. Before embarking on his conquest of Gaul, Caivs Ivlivs raised one of his legions from Cisalpine Gauls who were not even citizens and retroactively gave them citizenship- thus causing an uproar amongst the Boni back home. However, the men were just not available for his army, so he had to find other solutions. Again, Rome had suffered some very- very bloody defeats (amongst it Arausio, Rome's greatest defeat ever), then been involved in the bloody Social and Civil Wars. It is no coincidence that Germanicus found Legions revolting because the men were dissatisfied with long service. There simply were few Italian men left to draft.

Further, I know of no evidence, written ancient or archeological that says that Gaul was "exhausted by civil war", that their "good warriors were dead", nor that "they were starving to death". AFAIK Gaul was thriving as the Celtic Iron Age drew to a close, the mere name of that period sort of hints that Celts were economically and culturally dominant in Europe N of the Alps. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary and enlighten me. But I fail to see that Gaul would have been more exhausted than Italy. And before you talk of civil strife within Gaul, remember that amobngst Celts and Germans low-level civil strife was the norm. Antropologically/socialogically speaking such is the consequence of the early state and its evolution, but to the northern barbarians it was a matter of honour and resources, and a way of life.

So, as I see it, it was hardly because Caesar went for an exhausted and depleted Gaul that he won, rather the opposite. In fact Caesar was desperate for riches, why would he go for a devastated area devoid of people (to till the land and create income and to be sold as slaves) and wealth? When he was through with Gaul it was depleted, but certainly not before.

IMO Caesar was great because he thought out of the box of traditional Roman thinking and defeated all comers; Barbarian War Host, guerrilla and a supposedly equal opponent raising Roman, Spanish and N. African style Roman armies against him (do not forget Rome believed Pompey to be one of their best commanders who needed but stamp his foot and legions would spring up- further, he was likely more rich than Crassus after his conquests in the very wealthy east). So no matter who he fought, he adapted and overcame them. He also had a grand vision for his politics in Rome, apparently envisioning more integration, less segregation and thus a strengthening of Rome's Empire. IMO these things make him great, just like the exact same skills made Alexander great; defeating all comers no matter the nature of their armies/tactic, and possessing a vision for their realms.