Is Caesar overrated as general?

**geala** · 02-25-2010, 10:56

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** · 02-25-2010, 13:13

Originally Posted by Macilrille

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** · 02-25-2010, 18:04

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)

**Macilrille** · 02-26-2010, 11:30

Originally Posted by 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)

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** · 02-26-2010, 21:39

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** · 02-27-2010, 05:53

Originally Posted by 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...

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** · 02-27-2010, 12:21

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

**mrjade06** · 03-02-2010, 06:45

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

**Parallel Pain** · 02-25-2010, 23:28

Originally Posted by 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 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...