Is Caesar overrated as general?

[mrjade06]

ah Macilrille, hate to tell you bud but you are NOT the only professional historian on this site...I for one am another...

For another, Caesar as a GENERAL is VASTLY overrated IMHO as I have stated repeatedly due to the fact that he had many many many accomplishments other than just soldiering, and he is beloved in Western culture. I think he was a good general, but the greatest Rome had? NO! Greatest politician Rome ever had? Now that is a good argument to make. Do you really think for a second that Caesar could have accomplished what Belisarius did? How about Scipio? Do you think Caesar could have met and defeated Hannibal? I for one think not. Caesar was by all rights defeated by Pompey, and would have been destroyed had it not been for senate interference in Pompey's plans. Does anyone here think Pompey was a great general? Caesar only defeated Vercingetorix by a stroke of luck catching him in Alesia. Before that, he was running wild doing as he pleased and Caesar could do nothing to stop him. Stop being such a Caesarphile and look at what he did objectively. He defeated a very divided group of tribes in Gaul with the most disciplined, powerful, well trained and organized army possibly ever in world history. He defeated Pompey due to the fact that the Senate forced him to do something he didnt want to after he hada lost the first battle between them, and almost the war, and won victories against vastly inferior armies in Egypt and Asia Minor. What Caesar was truly incredible at was recovering from a defeat, coming up with a new plan of action, and executing it. But a truly INCREDIBLE general wouldn't get beaten in the first place...

[L.C. SVLLA]

ah Macilrille, hate to tell you bud but you are NOT the only professional historian on this site...I for one am another...

For another, Caesar as a GENERAL is VASTLY overrated IMHO as I have stated repeatedly due to the fact that he had many many many accomplishments other than just soldiering, and he is beloved in Western culture. I think he was a good general, but the greatest Rome had? NO! Greatest politician Rome ever had? Now that is a good argument to make. Do you really think for a second that Caesar could have accomplished what Belisarius did? How about Scipio? Do you think Caesar could have met and defeated Hannibal? I for one think not. Caesar was by all rights defeated by Pompey, and would have been destroyed had it not been for senate interference in Pompey's plans. Does anyone here think Pompey was a great general? Caesar only defeated Vercingetorix by a stroke of luck catching him in Alesia. Before that, he was running wild doing as he pleased and Caesar could do nothing to stop him. Stop being such a Caesarphile and look at what he did objectively. He defeated a very divided group of tribes in Gaul with the most disciplined, powerful, well trained and organized army possibly ever in world history. He defeated Pompey due to the fact that the Senate forced him to do something he didnt want to after he hada lost the first battle between them, and almost the war, and won victories against vastly inferior armies in Egypt and Asia Minor. What Caesar was truly incredible at was recovering from a defeat, coming up with a new plan of action, and executing it. But a truly INCREDIBLE general wouldn't get beaten in the first place...

professional historians add more substance than basic knowledge of the gallic wars. you have a degree?

you make so many rash judgements..let me help...1stly the Gauls weren't insignificant tribes, a few of them mustered and Caesars soldiers were vastly out numbered. Caesars battles were hard fought, the Romans called the Gauls "war mad". so much so were they, that the now Roman veterans still had difficulty taming gauls during Caesars final pacification of gaul during vercingetorix's rebellion. you say he had a stroke of luck, what's stopping me from saying a genius move to trap vercingetorix in a hill town? there are two sides to every story, yet you clearly take the negative route and give no detail as why your opinion is better. furthermore, egypt a cakewalk? LOL, Caesar was trapped and vastly outnumbered in egypt, he couldn't trust his captives or the besieging Egyptians so out goes his diplomacy. Caesar was saved as soon as a few more troops arrived, and he made a damn good job of defending his position with a skeleton army. oh and pompey being FORCED to do anything? he made the decision to travel to greece and recruit soldiers DESPITE Cicero's judgement, he fought it in his own terms, and he lost it.

and why do you over look Africa? in his initial landings he was so outnumbered, SO few in men and material/food, and so equaled by his opponent general who betrayed him (a veteran general of the gallic war) lead the assault, caesar and his soldiers fought desperately until all his forces were wounded (just to give you a hint of a few men of his went up against so many), so heroic were his men that a soldier of the 10th LEG. threw his missile at the attacking general (who had many more troops) and proudly claimed what unit he was with, that Caesar could NOT be considered over rated. now, could Scipio do that? his descendant couldn't despite a superstitious rumor claimed that any scipio would never be defeated in Africa. Caesar still won, even with the numidians closing in on Caesar to fight a final battle after Caesar ferocious defense after the African landing. did i mention he practically had no food?

Caesar fought against swarms of war mad Gauls. in your own words; the best soldiers, the legions. and he fought what was thought the greatest general at the time, Pompey. and he won the war.

Caesar is not overrated, he is one of the greatest generals in history. Don't take my word for it, take napoleons. I and Macrille would side with that general over any EB fan historian here who says otherwise.

[Mulceber]

Caesar is not overrated, he is one of the greatest generals in history. Don't take my word for it, take napoleons. I and Macrille would side with that general over any EB fan historian here who says otherwise.

I'll add my name to that list. -M

[mrjade06]

ahh yeah buddy BA and MA Northwestern University, working on PHD at Penn State presently...might know just a little. And I'm sure macrille and I are hardly the only professional historians on this website. However I love on your big long reply that you say things like I said Egypt was a cakewalk...actually I never mentioned it. Same thing with Africa You might want to look back on what I have said previously. You are the one making grandiose claims with little supporting evidence, for example not knowing that yes Pompey DID defeat Caesar first on his terms, with relatively green troops versus Caesars seasoned veterans, and then LOST when the Senate (which was shockingly enough more than just Cicero) forced him to attack on THEIR terms. You might want to read a few things and know a little bit more before you try and offer a rebuttal to arguments. Oh and as for Napoleon...throw him in the over-rated category as well. Had his brillant moments, but had his blunders as well. I'd put Caesar ahead of him, but around 30 generals over Caesar. I'll accept that Caesar was a brillant politician and speaker, but to suddenly be a brilliant military commander with no prior experience essentially before Gaul? Not so much but nice try.

Ludens,
most modern militarys today have massive issues getting enough recruits without conscription...is that an issue due to population problems, or maybe some other factors? Think about it...

[QUOTE=Mulceber;2440526]It doesn't matter if they were career soldiers - Roman soldiers in Caesar's time still had to be citizens, and regardless of how many people there were living within the bounds of the Roman Empire, citizens were scarce enough that Rome had trouble mustering legions.

Thats funny, tell me where did Caesar raise I believe two (I could be wrong on this number, but pretty sure it was 2) of his legions from? Would that be the non-citizen Gauls perhaps...

hmmmm

[L.C. SVLLA]

ahh yeah buddy BA and MA Northwestern University, working on PHD at Penn State presently...might know just a little. And I'm sure macrille and I are hardly the only professional historians on this website. However I love on your big long reply that you say things like I said Egypt was a cakewalk...actually I never mentioned it. Same thing with Africa You might want to look back on what I have said previously. You are the one making grandiose claims with little supporting evidence, for example not knowing that yes Pompey DID defeat Caesar first on his terms, with relatively green troops versus Caesars seasoned veterans, and then LOST when the Senate (which was shockingly enough more than just Cicero) forced him to attack on THEIR terms. You might want to read a few things and know a little bit more before you try and offer a rebuttal to arguments. Oh and as for Napoleon...throw him in the over-rated category as well. Had his brillant moments, but had his blunders as well. I'd put Caesar ahead of him, but around 30 generals over Caesar. I'll accept that Caesar was a brillant politician and speaker, but to suddenly be a brilliant military commander with no prior experience essentially before Gaul? Not so much but nice try.

little supporting evidence, jade you do know those things happened right? and that if you're an accomplished scholar you should know this? Caesar was besieged in Egypt, that you must know correct? lol read up on adrian goldsworthy "Caesar" if you don't believe me, like i would make crap up in the first place! :) and you really are a history major? no lie, right? i mean reaally?

but to suddenly be a brilliant military commander with no prior experience essentially before Gaul? Not so much but nice try.

dang friend...you criticizing caesar for no military experience before Gaul... even though he was an officer in Asia minor organizing auxiliary to defend against the pontics...and successfully did so and he also killed pirates that captured him with a navy. and then you criticize Napoleon ? how could..how could you troll me so mercilessly bro? i thought WE WERE BRO'S!!


I'm just gonna step back and and help you out: you're gonna need to brush up on your history.

[SlickNicaG69]

Mr. Jade criticizes because he is a person who is unable to give credit when credit is due. He is no scholar for scholars have no time to play games or reply to online video game posts or neglect the facts of history; if he does he would be categorized more as a scribe rather than a scholar for only they have time to indulge is such activities and fiddle with their pen so much. Anyone, regardless of expertise, who categorizes Caesar as being "overrated" is one who is ignorant of military matters and history, or who downgrades Caesar's military achievements. I've heard people say he wasn't good as "this" or "that" general before or after his time, but I don't think anyone of these generals mentioned, with the exception of Hannibal, could do the things he did from an inferior social position as Caesar had done - Pompey, Crassus, and the Senate all held more power than Caesar when he began his conquest. Alexander, Napoleon, and many other famous conquerors were rulers of their respective nations and commanded their resources by their own will, which many times gave them an advantage over their adversaries. By contrast, Caesar required the general approbation from Rome to conduct his conquest of Gaul. Because of his justification of defense, he could not obtain the resources for conquest from the Senate and instead had to derive them himself. In his battles he was almost always outnumbered and often experienced many negative circumstances, under which any general who was anything less than great would have succumbed (such as when a river flooded during his battle with Afranius in Spain, which caused him to encounter serious logistical problems). As I've said, Caesar wasn't great because he was flawless, but because in the end he prevailed!!! Why do we dare compare him with these other generals when SO MANY OF THEM whom you challenge him with lack this distinctive quality; Napoleon and Hannibal were defeated; Germanicus never subdued Germany; Alexander himself died without conquering lands he desired. Caesar, however, died a champion without a challenger. He died with the knowledge that no one, Roman or Barbarian, could raise an army and threaten him. So give the man his due. Don't say he is overrated. Say others are not rated enough. I, for one, esteem Aurelian amongst the top generals in Roman history, yet I know of no top-of-the-line resort hotels or modern-day cities bearing his name. But just because they bear Caesar's does not mean him to be overrated. It just gives him his dues!!!

[Macilrille]

Just popping in to say I have not forgotten you, but am doing other things. Will be back.

Meanwhile, Slickniga, I just skimmed your post, can you post in the "Great Roman Generals" why you favour Aurelian? The reconquests?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Some people should really think about why it was that Rome beat Carthage in the Second Punic War, but didn't conquer Gaul until Ceasar's time, 150 years later.

Perhaps it was because the Gauls weren't such an easy pushover after all. If it was that easy to conquer them, the Romans would have done so earlier.

[Mr Frost]

...He is no scholar for scholars have no time to play games or reply to online video game posts or neglect the facts of history...!!!

The man whom was responsible for the depiction of the Ptolemy faction in E.B. is a professor of Ptolemeic history . One has to be quite scholarly to qualify for such a profession . Indeed , many of the E.B. team are professional historians of one kind or another and fair scholars by any reasonable measure .

A common theme amoungst these scholars is that they play the game they helped create . Another thing I've noted of them is that a fair few find the time to post on this video game forum .




You logic is flawed . You also use to many exclaimation marks .

[SlickNicaG69]

You logic is flawed . You also use to many exclaimation marks .

Unfortunately it appears your logic is the one that is flawed Mr. Frost because not only do you base your argument on a clear figurative statement, but you employ it to defend someone with the language of a spam mail message and who has no idea what the definition of a great general is!!!

And I have one question. How would you know if they play the game or if they were merely employed or volunteered to do so?

[Ludens]

This thread could do with a little less ad-hominem and a little more source referencing. Keep that in mind, please.

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...

True, but I don't see how this invalidates my point.

BTW, please use the edit or multi-quote buttons when responding to multiple posts.

dang friend...you criticizing caesar for no military experience before Gaul... even though he was an officer in Asia minor organizing auxiliary to defend against the pontics...and successfully did so and he also killed pirates that captured him with a navy.

And he commanded an army while serving as Praetor in Iberia. IIRC he subjugated a few tribes in northern Iberia and got awarded a triumph for his efforts, but gave up the right to celebrate the triumph in order to run for the consulate. He won, and was awarded Gaul as province. The rest is history.

[Mulceber]

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

Thank you for bringing that up, as it helps my case: the two legions were raised from formerly non-citizen gauls. He gave them their citizenship specifically so that he could recruit them. A very Marian thing to do, giving out citizenship on massive scales. Regardless, this somewhat nontraditional strategy for acquiring soldiers merely reinforces my point - being a roman citizen was a prerequisite for service in the Roman military. -M