How good was Caesar as a military leader? And how much did his

File: 149876567654.png (39KB, 1304x778px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1304x778px

>>2982021
How good was Caesar as a military leader
pretty good desu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pharsalus

>>2982021
Caesar was an excellent military leader. He fought plenty of battles as the sole general of any repute. Anthony was just a shitty kid for most of Caesar's military career and Labienus got absolutely rekt by Caesar when they met in battle.
He's in the top tier of roman generals. There are some others with more spectaculars victories like Marius and Scipio, but Caesar was all around extremely solid and an absolute master of sieges and mobility.

>>2982021
>And how much did his subordinates, specifically Labienus and Antony, help him?
Labienus spent most of his service under Caesar leading independent commands raiding belgae and germans. If anything it's Pompey who got carried by Labienus during the civil war.
Anthony was more Caesar's aide/lieutenant than any sort of strategist. He himself certainly doesn't have a particularly impressive record as a general on his own.

>>2982021
Caesar was relatively unique in being skilled at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. Many other reputed generals tend to be noticeably weaker in one of the three areas.

>>2982021
He mostly fought tribes, and then the overrated Pompey (beaten by Sertorius).

He wasn't terrible, though.

>>2982859
Those tribes were mighty warriors and it's not like they were all retards. Read Caesars writings and you see even the Britons utilised great tactics against Caesar

>>2982908
They weren't cowardly weaklings, sure. However: tribes, by their very nature, lack strong organisation (like the Roman machinery).

To me, Caesar was a far greater politician.
>skilled orator
>used propaganda effectively
>used money effectively
>took bold risks
>first triumvirate (brought rivals crassus and pompey together)
>alliance with cleopatra
>other stuff

>>2982976
>Lack strong organisation.
Not necessarily. Like I said in Britain they showed great organisation under Cassivellaunus in use of terrain and tactics, he basically forced Romans to give up on Britain for 1000 years. No doubt they weren't as good but you need a better argument than organisation

Caesar was an exceptional general. The conquest of Gaul alone is enough to cement his position as such. Throw in his forced march and victory in Iberia, his crossing to Greece in winter right under the nose of Bibulus, victory at Pharsalus, and the siege of Alexandria. Truly one of history's greatest.

>>2983047
>showed great organisation under Cassivellaunus in use of terrain and tactics
No doubt there were tactics used by Caesar's enemies the Romans weren't quite used to. Like the Gauls with their boats. Romans tended to get auxiliaries to do non-standard stuff for them (lack of tech interest). I'm not saying certain tribal leaders were complete retards, just that the Roman organisation was superior due to their urban outlook and long standing methods.

>give up on Britain for 1000 years
The Romans went back when Claudius was Emperor. Not that they conquered all of Britain.

>need a better argument than organisation
Not really (see above). The Classical world was more impressive in their victories when they fought their own/similar kind (Scipio/Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Greek vs Greek wars). Caesar was the the best in his time.

>>2983199
The Greek tactics were heavily outdated by the time the Romans got to them and they never innovated past that which is why they were so easily conquered