Caesar Vs Celts/germanic Tribes

[Arvioustus]

He did not prove himself against the Parthians true but he most assurdly did against the Celts and the German tribes in a big way. Some say he is just an opportunist poltician who commited illegal wars. (Romans!) Some say he engineered wars with the Gauls,Helvetii and the German tribes. For example Tacitus paints the German tribes in such a favorable light basically saying they have so many more virtues than the Romans in just about all areas and only fight when provoked unlike the Romans. Tacitus ..I never believed one word of his. The German tribes were constantly harassing many Celtic areas and many were on this side of the Rhine by force. Some mixing in (Belgae) but most trying to take the prized farmlands of Gaul. Maybe Caesar engineered many of his wars,maybe not but you have to look at his battles and what he did to his men. I find it very hard to find anyone in history who has had his soldiers fight for him against so many odds as Caesar has. 10 to 1 in numbers against him but many times even more so. Some say he battled German tribes with numbers exceeding 400,000 while his numbers were under 100,000! Against serious traps and against brilliant leaders like Vercingetorix and my name sake Arvioustus. Also the Helvetii, who held their own against the German tribes but succumbed to Caesar. Yes he was arrogant to the core, crossing the Rhine with a relative few for 18 days just terrorizing the German tribes. Yes, they were terrorized against Caesar, Caesars accounts of cowardice against him spoke for themselves. Many tribes dropped their weapons and ran! This is documented by Caesar and many others. They drowned in the Rhine trying to flee him! You may say that the German tribes were just trumped up to being great fighters for propaganda,not sure. (I cannot count the tuetonberg loss as a battle as some do...just not a real fight and even there the Romans fought so valiantly..I give them credit,they were so outnumbered to be sure and spread out and were betrayed)Anyway Caesar was not there.

In reality I have to conclude either Caesar was an amazing leader of men or the Celts and Germans were not what many said they were.(against Caesar anyway) I wish Caesar had time to go to Parthia.maybe then he would have squashed his critics.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I see that you sure love reading the Gallic Wars. But I not sure if this thread is appropriate since its another vs, perhaps you can restate the idea.

[Arvioustus]

I see that you sure love reading the Gallic Wars. But I not sure if this thread is appropriate since its another vs, perhaps you can restate the idea.

Rambled on too much sorry,too much caffiene.

[Germanicus]

I see that you sure love reading the Gallic Wars. But I not sure if this thread is appropriate since its another vs, perhaps you can restate the idea.

 

Nothing wrong with Vs threads provided they relate to Rome which this clearly does.

 

So what do people think ? Were the Celts Caesar defeated a pathetic rable, as some anti Caesarians would have you think ? Is Caesars status as a general deserved ?

[Felix Marcellus]

I see that you sure love reading the Gallic Wars. But I not sure if this thread is appropriate since its another vs, perhaps you can restate the idea.

 

Nothing wrong with Vs threads provided they relate to Rome which this clearly does.

 

So what do people think ? Were the Celts Caesar defeated a pathetic rable, as some anti Caesarians would have you think ? Is Caesars status as a general deserved ?

 

Yes he deserves his status as a great general. THe Gauls may have been a rabble, but that doesn't take away the fact he conquered all of France with so few men while the Gauls were able to consistenty throw hundreds of thousands at him.

 

Not to mention the other "rabble" he fought.... Pompey's legions. Caesar fought and defeated the best the world had to offer at the time.

[Virgil61]

...

In reality I have to conclude either Caesar was an amazing leader of men or the Celts and Germans were not what many said they were.(against Caesar anyway) I wish Caesar had time to go to Parthia.maybe then he would have squashed his critics.

 

It would take a particularly biased person to not concede that Caesar was perhaps the greatest military leader of men in the ancient world, a seperate but just as important a skill as that of tactictian or strategist. Alexander was arguably a greater tactician on the battlefield but Caesar probably gets the edge as a leader who men would follow into hell (Alexander was no slouch in this aspect either).

 

Whatever one thinks of the motives or legality his campaigns in Gaul were almost brilliant. His battles in northern Gaul including the reconnaissance over the Rhine complete with that amazing bridge, securing his flank from harrassment by incursions into Britain and the siege of Alesia, all done while outnumbered and with great speed, show a mind that grasped the operational and strategic concepts of warfare.

 

This doesn't even begin to address his actions in the Civil War where he was faced with armies of equal skill and background or his understanding of supply and logistics. Caesar had some near misses and a few bad days but in overall leadership, determination and energy he never found his match.

 

My gut feeling is the Parthians would have had an unpleasant surprise.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Virgil61

[Favonius Cornelius]

Virgil outlines it well I think. The brilliance of Caesar is not necessarily being the best of all time at one thing in particular, but being so damned good at so many things. A genius polymath, the sum total of which accomplished more than any one man I know has ever done before or since.

 

Those who hate him for whatever reason, try to point out that he was not best at one particular thing and avoid this truth of the whole.

[Neos Dionysos]

Caesar does deserve acclaim for what he accomplished but perhaps he has too much than he really deserve. The same could be said about any famous person of history, an example is Alexander. Yes he was a great general but so few give credit to his generals who, in thier own right were very good if not at least highly competent and yet we can never really know just how much they added to make Alexander's victories so no matter whay he gets the credit his his leuitenants recieve little if any. Added to this, we must take into account that victor's write history. So Caeser's tales are told by himself and he may make himself out to be better than he really was, using propaganda and telling the people he killed 20,000 in a battle when he only killed 2,000. No person who writes thier own story is ever 100% truthful, they naturally have a bias in thier written texts and speeches to further thier own aims. This doesn't take away what they accomplished but should be kept in the back of ones head when they hear of great stories and feats done by person A or B. Another problem is that over time, someone goes from a leader to a legend and over time stories and triumphs they render and deeds they commit are made to be monumentus in achievement.

 

I guess my final comment on this is that Caeser deserves credit for his achievements but I think we, like everyone in the world has made him out to be greater, (and this goes for every other great figure in history), than they really ever were. This is where Heros are made. They die ordinary men who accomplish awesome deeds and we revere and emulate them to legendary status. Such is the problem we face when evaluating figures of history.