Why was Caesar a great general?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato, I admire your consistency in pointing out Caesar's several "near destructions". However, he always managed to find a way to win in the end. I understand that these defeats are often ignored by those who praise Caesar, but without at least some military merit, he would not have been as consistently lucky as he was.

 

You're absolutely right: Caesar had at least some military merit.

[Valentino Maximus46]

If Verticingetorix had not had the communication problems with his allies army out in the field. The outcome could have been quite different? In a brilliant military tactical display, Julius leads the secondary charge and so inspires his legions that they turned a closing defeat into a rousing victory. Julius risked it all and he pulled off the victory! He was a driven man. For reasons we may never fully know or understand, I think he had some major issues with the prospect of failure? That may have haunted and drove him through out his entire life? But sometimes in life we do our greatest work when we are "under the gun" so to speak.

[caldrail]

If Verticingetorix had not had the communication problems with his allies army out in the field. The outcome could have been quite different? In a brilliant military tactical display, Julius leads the secondary charge and so inspires his legions that they turned a closing defeat into a rousing victory. Julius risked it all and he pulled off the victory! He was a driven man. For reasons we may never fully know or understand, I think he had some major issues with the prospect of failure? That may have haunted and drove him through out his entire life? But sometimes in life we do our greatest work when we are "under the gun" so to speak.

 

Vercingetroix had to command a nation that wasn't united in the first place. He actually did brilliantly even with the result he got in my view. As for julius, failure meant an end to his ambitions and possibly his life.

[barca]

Yes, Labienus did "slightly check" Caesar's offensive in Africa.

 

Labienus almost annihilated Caesar's whole bloody army. According to Caesar's henchmen, the only reason Caesar was let off the hook was that Labienus wanted to give Metellus Scipio the honors of finishing off the rascal.

 

 

What is the best source for the Battle of Ruspina?

 

Was it an orderly retreat in the face of overwhelming odds, or was it a major debacle?

[Virgil61]

Yes, Labienus did "slightly check" Caesar's offensive in Africa.

 

Labienus almost annihilated Caesar's whole bloody army. According to Caesar's henchmen, the only reason Caesar was let off the hook was that Labienus wanted to give Metellus Scipio the honors of finishing off the rascal.

 

 

What is the best source for the Battle of Ruspina?

 

Was it an orderly retreat in the face of overwhelming odds, or was it a major debacle?

 

de Bello Africo is one source:

 

http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesar/africoe.html

 

It's a testament to his troops--and probably because of the veterans that he had within the ranks--that they kept their cool in spite of their fears and kept their faith in JC. The formations to counter the encirclement and the extension of his lines to 'break the circle' are quite an insight into the kind of command and control JC had, the response to training of these mostly raw troops and into the junior leadership he had on hand to carry it out. By the way a lot of German historians of the 19th century had differing theories as to what kind of drills and marches may have been used but that's not the point, the point is he responded quickly using the tools available. Ruspina is more military art than military science.

 

[it's possible that this sort of encirclement scenario was predicted and this tactic was thought up as a possible counter to it. Speculation of course but it would make sense if you were 'wargaming' scenarios as a commander.]

 

It wasn't a debacle, but not a win for JC. It was a tactical win by Labienus but the reality was he didn't need a tactical 'win' he needed to annihilate JC. The story goes that later that night deserters from Labienus' camp claimed that he'd hoped for panic and confusion in the ranks. He miscalculated his old commander even in defeat.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Virgil61

[caldrail]

Whether or not an individual was a great general is something rather subjective. As the answers provided above make clear, the reasons we believe Caesar to be good or bad depend on the information we focus on. For my part, I think he was an excellent leader. Charismatic, courageous, and determined to win regardless of risk. it is often said that battle are not usually won by timid generals.

 

You can play 'top trumps' with all the various aspects of the troops on either side as much as you like but this only influences an outcome, not determines the result. One of the most important aspects of battlefield success is the ability of man to inspire and lead his troops to victory. No mean feat. Especially since we've noted how difficult it was to provide for food and water for a large army. On this point, it might be a little unfair to criticise. How would you supply six thousand men with provisions in a world with precious little infrastructure, small populations, and despite the much vaunted logistics capability of the Romans, almost no supply provision. Every general faced this problem in the ancient world.

 

As for mutinies, we shouldn't really be suprised that even Caesar encountered Roman truculence. These troops were following him partly out of expectation of regular pay every three months, but also because they expected booty. That was the basis of the post-Marian legion. A feudal arrangement in which the soldier agrees to follow his general and expcts to handsomely rewarded for his risk. In which a general leads his legions for Rome and expects to be rewarded for his risk. These men were being marched long distances in trying circuumstances. It isn't easy. Discontent can catch hold and spread very quickly. We shouldn't worry too much about whether Caesar encountered a couple of mutinies - you find troublemakers in any army - but how he dealt with those situations. Succesfully, I note.

 

His exploits on the battlefield demonstrate he followed a principle that wise commanders followed. He would sometimes fight in the front line with his men. It was observed by the Romans themselves that a leader who shares the privations of his men will earn their respect. And Caesar did that. He was however more than that. He was described as knowing the names of all his centurions. In one phrase we discover how 'elevated' the typical patrician commander was as the representative of Rome's authority, and how willing Caesar was to set aside the social barriers and communicate directly with those under his command.

 

Nonetheless, Caesar has been described as careless in campaign. For all his success on the battlefield, his strategies weren't always the most desirable. Perhaps it's a little easy to judge. We don't the exact intelligence or objectives that guided his decisions.

 

The thing is, I recall the story of Caesar touring Spain with his colleagues and upon seeing a statue of Alexander the Great, began to weep. "Why are you crying, Caesar?" Asked his concerned companions. "Because," He told them, "At my age this man had conquered the world, and I have done nothing."

 

For a man who did nothing, he certainly got a mention in the history books. Ask anyone to name a famous ancient person. Most, I suspect, will name Julius Caesar. That's greatness. The truth might be different but we always remember the legend.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

If I recall correctly, Caesar wasn't a born military genius like Alexander but instead a learned General in the tradition of Frederick II of Prussia and George Washington.Is this correct?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

He did succeed in military operations rather young, beside being very courageous (see the siege of mythilene) but he was schooled in the military art and came to a point where he could command military forces in his late thirties, during his praetorship, as was expected in the cursus honorum. Alexander, on the other had, immediately had control of rather large forces, first under his father's command and then as sole leader, something Caesar would'nt have before Spain and, especially, Gaul.

One might say he came from lower officer class and rose to preminence, gaining his right to command in ways Frederick II never had to and also differently from G. Washington.

[caldrail]

If I recall correctly, Caesar wasn't a born military genius like Alexander but instead a learned General in the tradition of Frederick II of Prussia and George Washington.Is this correct?

 

That's a black and white view of the range of capable commanders. In reality it's about shades of grey. I seriously doubt that anyone, irrespective of talent, is capable of leading an army with 100% effectiveness if they have no education or experience of what to do. The again, as we all know, all the education and experience in the world is no little value if the person concerned has no ability whatsoever. Further to that is the question of individual initiative vs team support. Does a general assume sole responsibility and direction, or does he rely on talented junior officers for council and assistance?

[caldrail]

I forgot to answer your question. The most telling indication of what kind of leader Caesar was comes from his own hand. Early in The Gallic Wars, caeaar gathers all his centurions and tels them in no uncertain terms that their job is to lead their men, not to discuss strategy, which he clearly regards as his own prerogative as a Roman noble.