Reading Group--Caesar's Legion

[mmadsen]

Sorry for the judgemental post, but from reading I get the feeling Ceasar is only out to improve is own person.

Unlike the rest of us...

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Indeed. It also makes clear that even when Caesar was late in payment, the "Pay was good." It seems apparent that the officers, and even the average Legionnaire, became quite wealthy from serving with Caesar--if he survived.

I'm not quite sure what makes Caesar so "bad"--to my mind, he was a visionary, a brilliant general and politician, and a great hero of Rome,who wanted to make Rome strong, and better able to make its way in a hostile world.

The fact that he enslaved an entire culture--slaughtering over a million people and enslaving more than another million--isn't really any different than what any other Roman general would have done, had he been in Caesar's place. Next, the Gauls had the tools to win, and keep their independence. But they effed it up because they couldn't get their act together and be united.

That is a fatal cultural mistake--and every culture without exception that has been unable to maintain a ferocious political and military unity has been left for the crows. Look at the the Gauls, the Celts of Britain, the Scots, the Irish, the Indian tribes of North America; the Indian tribes of South America; the tribes and kingdoms of Africa; Various tribes and kingdoms and governments of Asia.

Over and over again, throughout four thousand years of history, those peoples who can't unite, and are too busy squabbling amongst themselves get crushed. That is the lesson of history over and over again, and many different peoples and cultures seem to have been unable or too late in grasping that salient concept.

Legionnaires could make some real money, after all, they had plunder rights if the city resisted! That can be a whole lot of wealth! Imagine what some of them had from after 20 years of campaigning? Imagine that some of them could have set themselves up quite well, and lived the rest of their lives in comfort and priviledge. There is a reason, after all, that the men really did love Caesar.

With but a single word, he had them clamoring to fight to the death for him...

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[mmadsen]

I'm not quite sure what makes Caesar so "bad"--to my mind, he was a visionary, a brilliant general and politician, and a great hero of Rome,who wanted to make Rome strong, and better able to make its way in a hostile world.

By those criteria, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Mussolini were equally Great. (OK, Hitler and Mussolini blew it.) I'm willing to say they were "bad".

The fact that he enslaved an entire culture--slaughtering over a million people and enslaving more than another million--isn't really any different than what any other Roman general would have done, had he been in Caesar's place.

I don't think any other Roman general would be considered "good" either (by modern criteria). What complicates the issue, of course, is that historical leaders aren't living in modern times. An idealized leader would unify tribes without war, would bring justice, would increase trade and culture, etc. In a violent world though, a great general brings about justice, trade, and culture the hard way. He kills and enslaves millions, until there's a Pax Romana.

I still have to wonder what a less agressive Rome might've done. Could Roman ways spread without Roman legions leading the way? Probably not, because the peace necessary for roads and travel (and thus cultural and economic exchange) only came about once everything was under Roman rule.

That is a fatal cultural mistake--and every culture without exception that has been unable to maintain a ferocious political and military unity has been left for the crows.

Agreed. Someone is always going to come along and take what's yours. Fighting isn't a unilateral decision. You may not have to start wars and spread your empire, but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to play nice.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I agree mmadsen. I think though that Caesar, as opposed to Hitler, Stalin, et. al. didn't have any particular racist, tyrannical, or ideological axes to grind, in particular. Unlike Hitler and so on. If Caesar didn't do what he did, either some other Roman would have stepped up and done it, thus securing Rome, or Rome's enemies would have devoured them--like the Sammnites, the Greeks, the Carthaginians,--as well as the Celts, and so on.

One must remember that the Celts actually conquered and plundered Rome, in about 360 B.C. if I recall. The Roman leader begged the Celtic Chieftain that Rome could spare no more treasure, and the Celtic Chief sternly gazed at him, and cast his great sword roughly across the scales, and declared "Woe to the Conquered!"--meaning, either pay up the million pounds of gold demanded, or die.

The Romans paid the price.

The Romans never forgot that lesson, and they burned for vengeance. When the time came, --unlike the Celts who chose not to stay and conquer--a fatal mistake on their part--the Romans, led by Caesar, they kicked ass and took names--and they came to stay. Permanently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[mmadsen]

I think though that Caesar, as opposed to Hitler, Stalin, et. al. didn't have any particular racist, tyrannical, or ideological axes to grind, in particular.

Well, it's hard to argue that the Romans weren't fascists, given the origin of fascism (the Roman fasces). But it is almost refreshing to see Caesar seize power because...he wants it. No pretenses.

(Anyway, we should probably cut this off before it gets too political. I already made the mistake of saying "Hitler"...)

 

[Rashak Mani]

Come on guys... Cesar was just consolidating the natural security area around Rome... 1000 miles or more... but still just making those borders safe.

Slaves ? Of course... those poor barbarians need to be made economically useful... otherwise they would just die elsewhere...

War ? Good for the economy... they still do it today... they did it back then.

Politics... well thats hard to argue for ...

Overall I agree with Shark... hard to keep cultural bias... Napoleon is a good example of how time changes views. In his time and age outside france he was portrayed as a monster. Nowdays most admire and study him as one of the greatest generals.

 

[mmadsen]

War ? Good for the economy...

If you're winning wars and bringing back the spoils (slaves and goods), sure, it's good for your economy...

 

[mmadsen]

Sitting on a hill, the town [Ilerda] was on the right bank of the Segre, not far from where it joined the Ebro River. Moving his forces into the area, Afranius occupied the walled town and also built a fortified camp nearby....Caesar crossed two bridges over the Segre just completed by General Fabius and marched the army to confront the Pompeian forces outside Lerida [Ilerda], where over the next seventy-two hours his legions built a fortified camp.

Afranius just left bridges there for Caesar to use? I can't imagine Caesar leaving bridges around for his enemies to use.

He then led three of his legions on a surprise mission to sieze a small hill that lay between the town and General Afranius's camp, with the objective of dividing the Pompeian forces.

What's the difference between dividing your enemy's forces and volunteering to get ouflanked and surrounded?

Realizing what Caesar was up to, General Afranius quickly dispatched his on-duty guard cohorts, which occupied the hillock before Caesar's troops could reach it....Caesar's advance guard was beaten back...

The 14th, on one of Caesar's wings, takes casualties and gives up ground. This causes the youngsters in the 9th to panic as well. Caesar personally leads the 9th, and chases Afranius's troops down the hill -- where they circle around and outflank the 9th! Eventually the cavalry come to the rescue.

It sure seems like Caesar's getting his nose a bit bloodied!

 

[Sulimo]

I still have to wonder what a less agressive Rome might've done. Could Roman ways spread without Roman legions leading the way? Probably not, because the peace necessary for roads and travel (and thus cultural and economic exchange) only came about once everything was under Roman rule.

Agreed. Someone is always going to come along and take what's yours. Fighting isn't a unilateral decision. You may not have to start wars and spread your empire, but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to play nice.

I dont think its possible, the whole culture of the Romans was one of violence. Just look at the way the political system is structured too.

Even ignoring this I think a less agressive Rome would not have survived its early days.

I actually wonder more about what would have happened if Rome was able to repell the barbarian hordes. What would've happened if the western empire was a power for a much longer period of time.

 

[willpax]

Most of the time, it wasn't about repelling the barbarians, but accomodating them. The reason the east didn't fall is that it had a higher population density, so there was nowhere to take up farming. In the west (which was never as developed), there was room in Gaul.

As the empire descends from its peak (3rd - 4th centuries) the burden of defending so much border begins to grow too great (not enough citizens willing to join the army, taxes becoming burdensome with not much to show for it--the same old story). Then the Western Emperors actually contract out some defensive work to the federates--German tribes that have entered the Empire peacefully, trading land for a promise to fight on the side of the Romans in battle. So the Romans had actually become quite used to armed Germans in the neighborhood well before the Western Empire fell.

Many historians see the fall of Rome as lying in problems in its own administration (growing lack thereof) and economy (slave based, leading to no incentive to invest or even produce)--the barbarians simply took advantage of a growing weakness.

That's at least one version of it. I'm sure there are others.