Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar or Constantine the great

[Divus Julius]

Oh, and I wouldn't say that "no Pompeian accounts of the battle survived". That's not really true even today when many works of Roman history have been sadly lost. At least one other definitive account of the battle by Asinius Pollio (admittedly a Caesarian, but by all accounts he was unafraid to criticize Caesar, and may well have been one of the many who fell out with him at a later date) was around as a source for a long time. There would almost certainly have been many, many more accounts besides this. Almost all the leading Romans involved would have left their own opinions in their archives, and many other probably wrote of it. These works were all available for those who wished to write on the battle later, and in their broad strokes they apparently matched the account Caesar gave.

 

I'd hardly call Cassius Dio, Plutarch, or even really Suetonius pro-caesarian, quite the opposite really. I don't think I even need to mention Lucan.

[sylla]

Oh, and I wouldn't say that "no Pompeian accounts of the battle survived". That's not really true even today when many works of Roman history have been sadly lost. At least one other definitive account of the battle by Asinius Pollio (admittedly a Caesarian, but by all accounts he was unafraid to criticize Caesar, and may well have been one of the many who fell out with him at a later date) was around as a source for a long time. There would almost certainly have been many, many more accounts besides this. Almost all the leading Romans involved would have left their own opinions in their archives, and many other probably wrote of it. These works were all available for those who wished to write on the battle later, and in their broad strokes they apparently matched the account Caesar gave.

 

I'd hardly call Cassius Dio, Plutarch, or even really Suetonius pro-caesarian, quite the opposite really. I don't think I even need to mention Lucan.

Check out your sources; despite its name, Lucan's Pharsalia tell us nothing about the battle itself. From all your quoted sources, Cassius Dio is the only one that actually described the battle, essentially copying from Caesar's account.

 

As far as I'm aware of, no Pompeian accounts of the battle survived.

Edited April 19, 2009 by sylla

[Divus Julius]

Oh, and I wouldn't say that "no Pompeian accounts of the battle survived". That's not really true even today when many works of Roman history have been sadly lost. At least one other definitive account of the battle by Asinius Pollio (admittedly a Caesarian, but by all accounts he was unafraid to criticize Caesar, and may well have been one of the many who fell out with him at a later date) was around as a source for a long time. There would almost certainly have been many, many more accounts besides this. Almost all the leading Romans involved would have left their own opinions in their archives, and many other probably wrote of it. These works were all available for those who wished to write on the battle later, and in their broad strokes they apparently matched the account Caesar gave.

 

I'd hardly call Cassius Dio, Plutarch, or even really Suetonius pro-caesarian, quite the opposite really. I don't think I even need to mention Lucan.

Check out your sources; despite its name, Lucan's Pharsalia tell us nothing about the battle itself. From all your quoted sources, Cassius Dio is the only one that actually described the battle, essentially copying from Caesar's account.

 

As far as I'm aware of, no Pompeian accounts of the battle survived.

 

I'm not talking about acounts of the battle of Pharsalus just saying that not everything we have is anti-Pompey. Indeed, quite a bit is thouroughly anti-Caesar. Plutarch's work is an interesting study in which he seeths with contempt for all of Caesar's early career, is full of boundless admiration for the Gallic War, and is back to anti-Caesar once he crosses the Rubicon. On note of which - Plutarch also talk at length about Pharsalus, statedly utilizing Pollio's work rather than Caesar's, and from him we learn about the additional tactic used by Caesar of ordering his men in how to use their pilla. Suetonius does not talk at length on the battle, although as he also states that he used Pollio as a reference he must have been familiar with it.

 

All these writers and a few others besides, none Caesar proponents, had access to plentiful material on Pharsalus and other battles that we have lost today, and by and large what they had must have matched Caesar's account.

[Divus Julius]

Another point to make is that Roman accounts of battles cannot all just be lumped into "propaganda" as far as the numbers are concerned. Or at least, they can be sorted into categories of the swallowable and the completely ridiculous.

 

Caesar's accounts fall under the "swallowable" category. By and large his Commentaries have the ring of truth to them. There are inconsistencies here and there, likely some exageration, a couple of rather obvious falsifications, but by and large it checks out. The best summary of this I think comes from Christian Meier, certainly not an admirer of Caesar, who nevertheless concluded that his reports can largely be taken as fairly close to accurate (at least, as close to accurate as records in the Ancient World get). A part of this comes from the fact that when reasoned out, everything (or rather, most of thing the stuff) that Caesar writes makes sense when you think about it - is believable. In the biographies on Caesar by Meier, Goldsworthy, Freeman, and Gelzer that I've read, the historians have come to the same conclusion.

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum I can think of no better example than the reports of the battles fought by Sulla (although Alexander the Great springs to mind). The accounts of his battles against Pontus my contain accurate versions of the events of the battle, but the numbers are completely illogical and clearly made up. The casualty counts of Caesar's battles have the benefit of making sense; as per the broadly summarized post I made above, when reasoned through step by step what we know of the events matches the numbers. As opposed to Sulla's.

[sylla]

I'm not talking about acounts of the battle of Pharsalus just saying that not everything we have is anti-Pompey. Indeed, quite a bit is thouroughly anti-Caesar. Plutarch's work is an interesting study in which he seeths with contempt for all of Caesar's early career, is full of boundless admiration for the Gallic War, and is back to anti-Caesar once he crosses the Rubicon. On note of which - Plutarch also talk at length about Pharsalus, statedly utilizing Pollio's work rather than Caesar's, and from him we learn about the additional tactic used by Caesar of ordering his men in how to use their pilla. Suetonius does not talk at length on the battle, although as he also states that he used Pollio as a reference he must have been familiar with it.

 

All these writers and a few others besides, none Caesar proponents, had access to plentiful material on Pharsalus and other battles that we have lost today, and by and large what they had must have matched Caesar's account.

Then, after your careful review, our lack of Pompeian accounts on Pharsalus of any kind has been confirmed.

 

Both Suetonius, but especially Plutarch, were rigorous researchers; writing close to two centuries after Pharsalus, the only alternative account they were able to quote came from the Caesarian Pollio, in all likelihood because they found no other. In any case, Suetonius wrote nothing about the battle, and most of what Plutarch wrote (the pila trick included) came explicitly from Caesar

[sylla]

Another point to make is that Roman accounts of battles cannot all just be lumped into "propaganda" as far as the numbers are concerned. Or at least, they can be sorted into categories of the swallowable and the completely ridiculous.

 

Caesar's accounts fall under the "swallowable" category. By and large his Commentaries have the ring of truth to them. There are inconsistencies here and there, likely some exageration, a couple of rather obvious falsifications, but by and large it checks out. The best summary of this I think comes from Christian Meier, certainly not an admirer of Caesar, who nevertheless concluded that his reports can largely be taken as fairly close to accurate (at least, as close to accurate as records in the Ancient World get). A part of this comes from the fact that when reasoned out, everything (or rather, most of thing the stuff) that Caesar writes makes sense when you think about it - is believable. In the biographies on Caesar by Meier, Goldsworthy, Freeman, and Gelzer that I've read, the historians have come to the same conclusion.

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum I can think of no better example than the reports of the battles fought by Sulla (although Alexander the Great springs to mind). The accounts of his battles against Pontus my contain accurate versions of the events of the battle, but the numbers are completely illogical and clearly made up. The casualty counts of Caesar's battles have the benefit of making sense; as per the broadly summarized post I made above, when reasoned through step by step what we know of the events matches the numbers. As opposed to Sulla's.

We agree on Alexander; there are no records of any Persian reports that might have countered the semi-legendary accounts on the remote Persian campaigns. To find an analogous narrative from Caesar, we ought to check on the Helvetian campaign; its figures are clearly beyond any ring of truth.

 

Roman accounts on the Republican Civil Wars (Caesar's included) should certainly have fallen under the "swallowable" category, analogous again with the Soviets

Edited April 20, 2009 by sylla

[Caesar CXXXVII]

So, who won Pharsallus ? Maybe it was good old Poempy and Caesar just lied ?

[sylla]

So, who won Pharsallus ? Maybe it was good old Poempy and Caesar just lied ?

"Everybody lies"

 

Gregory House, MD

[marcus silanus]

If you were a Centurion or any other high officer, and if you could choose to serve Scipio Africanus when he defeated Hannibal at Zama 202BC , or Julius Caesar when he won the civil war against Pompei at Pharsalus 48BC , or Constantin the great when he crushed Emperor Maxentius at Pons Milvius and marched at Rome to be the last Emperor to control all the empire in 312AD. Of these persons, who would you want to serve?

 

Without doubt Scipio. His greatness in character, perception in judging his opponent and intelligence in the use of tactics was, unlike Caesar and Constantine, uncorrupted by spurious motive. Caesar's decision to cross the Rubicon, that ultimately led to Pharsalus, showed an inability in him to temper his desire for total power even though he knew that his actions would throw the world into turmoil. He feared the judgement of posterity more than anything.

 

Constantine was simply the arch politician and manipulator of superstition. His genius was to use the hitherto conflicting cult of Christ to work with the cult of the emperor, providing a much needed adhesive to a fragmenting empire.

 

Scipio's triumph over Hannibal was one of a great general over a great general. It was Wellington over Napoleon. His greatness had already been proven in rallying the defeated troops at Cannae and gaining ultimate control in Spain after his inspired victory at Illipa. His reward was meagre in comparison to the benefits enjoyed by Caesar and Constantine. His motives were, however, pure and unsullied and he, unlike Caesar, did not risk the future of all around him to gamble at reaching the pinnacle of historic regard.

[marcus silanus]

I would like to fight WITH Maxentius AGAINST Constantine, and do my bit to restore Rome as the centre of the Empire, and try to prevent the monster Constantine from gaining power, re - centering the Empire in the east, reducing the legions to a watchtower militia and introducing measures which would pave the way for the destruction of classical culture.

 

I hadn't ever thought of Constantine in those terms and I do admire the iconoclastic logic. He was an arch expedient and the truth of his motives were, I suspect, markedly different to the Christian tradition. The focus of the empire shifted geographically, of course and it's self confidence and esteem was more fragile from that time.

[sylla]

Scipio's triumph over Hannibal was one of a great general over a great general.

That's an interesting comparison because, contrary to the isolated panegyric accounts for any of the three quoted Roman battles, we have plenty of information available on Waterloo from almost any angle. In fact, we can attest the Rashomon play; it's no surprise that the battle analysis is defined essentially by the nationality of the analyst. Both the British and the Germans attributed their victory to their respective commander, while the French (and the Emperor himself) attributed their defeat to the mistakes of one of their own (Ney).

There are of course countless factors that contribute to any battle's outcome; an endless discussion on the case of Waterloo is clearly out of the scope of this thread. However, the outcome of Waterloo was hardly unexpected after a quick arithmetic assesment: some 118,000 veteran allies crushed some 72,000 young conscripts from the demographically depleted France.

Even if Waterloo was less than two centuries ago, there is always some debate regarding casualties; even so, the average figures are far more reliable (and credible) than the typical balance from either Zama or Pharsalus; a good estimation would be some 32,000 French (44%) and 22,000 allies (19%).