Why was Caesar a great general?

[Mosquito]

Was Marius any less successful than Caesar? Compare their invasions of Africa, where--contrary to previous claims--Labienus had the initiative against Caesar and soundly trounced him at Ruspina.

 

I belive that Marius was always much better prepared. I think he was planning his campaigns long before their start.

Caesar was different, he was one of those brillant people who can solve any problem "ad hoc", just after it occures.

[Virgil61]

Was Marius any less successful than Caesar? Compare their invasions of Africa, where--contrary to previous claims--Labienus had the initiative against Caesar and soundly trounced him at Ruspina.

 

Was it Marius or Sulla who should be credited for the campaign against Jugurtha? Of course they were at each others throats for years over that question. Anyway, Marius was in North Africa for over two years while Caesar's presence was a matter of a few months. Different objectives of course and I'm not sure if they're comparable.

 

At Ruspina Caesar's men (30 cohorts, mostly newly raised) were on a foraging expedition and the two rather small armies came upon each other. Caesar was almost without cavalry or archers vs. Labienus' Numidians.

 

Interestingly Fuller and Goldsworthy have written in (I think) dramatically different tones about Ruspina. Fuller considers it a narrower escape than his jumping into the Great Harbour at Alexandria while Goldsworthy calls it a setback and can barely bring himself to call Ruspina a battle.

 

(Fuller is at pg 270 in the Da Capo press printing and Goldsworthy at the top of pg 459.)

[M. Porcius Cato]

(Fuller is at pg 270 in the Da Capo press printing and Goldsworthy at the top of pg 459.)

 

We must have identical libraries. As you might suspect, I follow Fuller's account.

[OdiEtAmo]

Was Marius any less successful than Caesar? Compare their invasions of Africa, where--contrary to previous claims--Labienus had the initiative against Caesar and soundly trounced him at Ruspina.

 

Why do you hate Caesar?

 

Here are some other reasons why Caesar is one of the best Generals of all time:

 

Great foresight--the ability to see a problem and it solve it with a solution good for short and long term

Inspires his soldiers (by fighting right along side them & his great speeches)

Genius in not only warfare but also politics & writing

He did everything Fast, fast, fast

[M. Porcius Cato]

Overall: Caesar Excelled in ALL 4 areas of generalship: strategy, tactics, logistics, & battlefield command.

 

I'd give you 3/4 (maybe), but not logistics. What is the evidence that he was good at logistics?

[Gaius Octavius]

Was Marius any less successful than Caesar? Compare their invasions of Africa, where--contrary to previous claims--Labienus had the initiative against Caesar and soundly trounced him at Ruspina.

 

Very, very important point. Then, as we all know, Caesar, The Darling of Venus, lost the war and committed suicide.

[Mosquito]

Overall: Caesar Excelled in ALL 4 areas of generalship: strategy, tactics, logistics, & battlefield command.

 

I'd give you 3/4 (maybe), but not logistics. What is the evidence that he was good at logistics?

 

 

MPC - what will you say about expedition to Britain, wasnt it logistically perfectly prepared? If he had time, he was able to prepare everything. But usually he just didnt want to waste his time and this impatience was one of his weaknesses but usually he was able to turn everything into his advantage.

[Roberto]

Overall: Caesar Excelled in ALL 4 areas of generalship: strategy, tactics, logistics, & battlefield command.

 

I'd give you 3/4 (maybe), but not logistics. What is the evidence that he was good at logistics?

 

 

MPC - what will you say about expedition to Britain, wasnt it logistically perfectly prepared? If he had time, he was able to prepare everything. But usually he just didnt want to waste his time and this impatience was one of his weaknesses but usually he was able to turn everything into his advantage.

 

He had little time to waste in Gaul. He had to pacify it before his term was up. Invading Britain was needed for pacification. He had little time to do much. Most of his impatience in Gaul should probably be attributed to this.

 

If handling of ships falls into the category of logistics then he was a failure in Britain.

[Primus Pilus]

While I believe that invading Britain was both financially exploratory and a political propaganda move, meaning that there was little necessity for it as suggested, Caesar's impatience is not a valid excuse for his logistic failings. The invasion of Britain had been in planning for some time and while he may have arrived well supplied he had trouble securing additional supplies once they landed and faced the enemy.

 

Impatience and/or a desire to remain highly mobile may be one reason for his logistical problems, but it still stands that Caesar had trouble with these issues throughout his campaigns. Saying that he could have rectified if he had wanted to may or may not be correct, but since Caesar was generally not concerned with defending and maintaining adequate lines of supply, clearly the historical fact is that he had problems with logistics.

 

Understand that I think Caesar was a brilliant general, but he did have problems keeping his army fed.

[Divi Filius]

The problem was not unique to Caesar. I think this was really one of the big problems of antiquity, even Alexander suffered often in the logistics department. I think this is largely the end result of the Romans(and the Greeks, sea wise) being an adventurous people who mixed conquest with discovery.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Gaius Octavius]

How is it known that the 'invasion' of Britain was not a reconnaissance in force? Caesar could not have known his potential enemies' strengths and weaknesses.

 

Shall he be blamed for the storms that scattered his fleet and also prevented supplies from reaching him from Gaul?

 

Ancient armys depended on foraging and conquest for supplies. D.W. Engels in his "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army" holds that Alexander's army could only carry three days supplies with them. Logistics, save for roads, had not changed the least for Caesar. Neither Alexander's nor Caesar's supply line backed up to Greece or Rome.

 

Shall Caesar be blamed for taking whatever opportunities that were presented to him - or to the enthusiasm of his legionaries?

 

We admit to trade between Britain and Gaul, yet we don't hold that this trade should have been interrupted by a wise commander!

 

What amazes me to no end, is how, in the bloody white blazes, could such an incompetent scoundrel gain half the empire for Rome, and succeed against the very 'best' men of Rome.!?

Edited March 29, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Virgil61]

...

Impatience and/or a desire to remain highly mobile may be one reason for his logistical problems, but it still stands that Caesar had trouble with these issues throughout his campaigns. Saying that he could have rectified if he had wanted to may or may not be correct, but since Caesar was generally not concerned with defending and maintaining adequate lines of supply, clearly the historical fact is that he had problems with logistics.

 

Understand that I think Caesar was a brilliant general, but he did have problems keeping his army fed.

 

I take a contrarian position on this topic. I highly doubt that logistical problems were confined to Caesar's army. The reason we know so much about it is that he wrote of the issue. Even now if you looked at a typical US Army Brigade commander's day in Iraq a large portion of it is devoted to logistics of some kind.

 

If we put forth that Caesar had some sort of atypical problem with logistics then how do we deal with the logistics of Hannibal's twenty year stay in Italy? He had no supply line available and lived on the fat of the land with or without the support of the locals. Do we use the same criticism of the barbarian armies of the 5th century that moved across the Western empire?

 

We don't have Trajan's account of ops in Dacia, or that of hardly any other commander of Roman troops. Keep in mind that if you're moving through unfriendly territory with say 50,000 men do we really think that there were daily or weekly log trains of hundreds of wagons filled with 'corn' supplying these legions?

 

Trajan's column is instructive. It portrays the legion's soldiers as building fortifications and conducting supply operations. It was chiseled by artists who must have been in the legions or, probably, had been advised as to what to depict. And it depicts not battles generally, but the movement of troops, building fortifications and supply issues; those things that take up a soldier's and commander's time. I think we're making the same mistake as the British archaeologist who's looked at Trajan's column and determined that the legion's had become nothing more than military engineers by his rule not understanding that actual fighting is a small token of an army's problems.

 

We know of Caesar's problem because logistics is a commander's issue and, importantly, he was the only commander whose extended first-person account of long-term operations we have.

[M. Porcius Cato]

MPC - what will you say about expedition to Britain, wasnt it logistically perfectly prepared?

 

Definitely not. He didn't even pack extra sails or sufficient anchorage, leading to a near-disaster for his whole army. (Unfortunately I'm out of town at the moment, so I can't quote page numbers from Fuller, but Virgil might be of assistance here.)

 

We know of Caesar's problem because logistics is a commander's issue and, importantly, he was the only commander whose extended first-person account of long-term operations we have.

 

True enough, but we have good information about Alexander's mastery of logistics in his campaigns. It's useful to compare the two along this dimension.

[Divi Filius]

True enough, but we have good information about Alexander's mastery of logistics in his campaigns. It's useful to compare the two along this dimension.

 

Alexander was marching through a well known world with a long history and trade-routes, and even then he had his blunders. Alexander is lucky he didnt have to face an enemy after the Gedrosia incident.

 

Plus, what were Alexander's plans after Tarsus? From what we can tell, the original expedition was to go no further then that point. After that, luck seems to be a substantial factor in his campaign.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Divi Filius

[M. Porcius Cato]

True enough, but we have good information about Alexander's mastery of logistics in his campaigns. It's useful to compare the two along this dimension.

Plus, what were Alexander's plans after Tarsus? From what we can tell, the original expedition was to go no further then that point. After that, luck seems to be a substantial factor in his campaign.

 

These have nothing to do with logistics.