Goldsworthy on Caesar in MHQ

[richsc]

The spring 2003 edition of MHQ has an article by Adrian Goldworthy "Caesar's Military Genius Reexamined". If I read it correctly, Goldsworthy's position is that rather than being a genius, Caesar was simply a lot better at being a conventional Roman general than any of his contemporaries. <p>Richard Campbell, Legio XX<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>

[Alexandr K]

Hi,<br>
the same opinion you can read in his book "The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200".<br>
<br>
Alexandr <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I noticed the article on Caesar had a paragraph or two on Varus. Goldsworthy mentions that Varus led a show of force expedition when he was governor of Syria. It was against a revolt but the article didn't have details. I don't find any mention in the general histories on my shelf nor in my biography of Augustus. Does anyone have details of Varus' expedition against rebels in Syria or Judea? <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

What do you mean by genius?<br>
<br>
It be argued that even Alexandre could be described at doing better what his dad Philip already did quite well. What did Napoleon do that makes him be classified a genius?<br>
<br>
Is it a matter of emphasis? Or is there some really clear cut aspect that you use to capture true genius?<br>
<br>
I hope you recognize how difficult is it to attribute a certain performance to completely new invention versus an adaptation/bettering of previous techniques.<br>
<br>
"No man is an island" and we all have debts. Maybe what Goldsworthy is doing is paying respects to the roman army and the society of the time that created many bright peronalities, rather than trivializing Ceasar's talents. He has argued more than once against the stereotype of the typical roman general being stupid and the mechanical army needing to be simply placed in the right direction.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[John Maddox Roberts]

Caesar was a great tooter of his own horn, but his military accomplishments are undeniable. He added more territory to the empire than any other general. It may be said that some of his success was due to pure luck, but the ancient world looked at these things differently. They didn't perceive luck as random chance, but as a sign that the gods loved you. Who would you rather follow, a general who made straight A's at West Point and has all the theory down pat, or one who has proven repeatedly that the gods love him? This was why Sulla styled himself "Felix," a word that can mean "happy" or "fortunate" but that carries the meaning that the bearer is favored by the gods. It was, perhaps, the most important quality a man could have. It was not recognized only in ancient times. Napoleon, when asked which subordinate commanders he singled out for advancement, answered: "the lucky ones." <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

It has always bothered me that we measure Caesar's greatness mostly because of what he wrote about himself. We would not tolerate doing that in judging any other general.<br>
<br>
More territory was added to the empire by Augustus than Caesar (though certainly Augustus was no general). Caesar added part of NW Hispania (though interestingly Gallaecia needed to be retaken by Augustus). Caesar also added the territories later divided into Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica, Germania Superior and Inferior. His Civil War conquests were all of territories already belonging to the empire so did not add new territories. Trajan's later conquest of Dacia and his temporary conquests of Armenia and Mesopotamia/Assyria compare very well in and may even exceed in size Casear's conquests. <p></p><i></i>

[John Maddox Roberts]

But it's Caesar that we remember, not the others. See? The gods loved him. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Jeff,<br>
Goldsworthy makes a similar reference in his Roman Warfare book. He explains that Varus as governor of Syria quelled a rebellion by a show of force, similar to the disasterous one made by him later, in Judea 4 bc after the death of Herod the Great. That is all he mentions on it. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

Hi<br>
I have always wondered if it would have been wise for Ceasar to really exagerate his qualities while tooting away.<br>
I mean his commentaries were intended to be read by his social peers, and not some gulible mass of ignorant readers with the REAL power of modern vote, igorant not only of where the hell gaul was but of the subtleties of politics and propaganda.<br>
<br>
Ceasar was in company of an oligarchy of aggressive aristocrats that would have loved to catch him at fault or lying just to use it as ammunition against him. So in a way I am inclined to think he was more true in his commentaries than what some people seem to suspect. He might have hidden things (not tell the whole truth) but I think he avoided lying as it could and WOULD have been used against him.<br>
<br>
<br>
p.s. a memory just occurred to me. I don't have a copy now but I remember Ceasar describing an animal in germany (I believe), a type of horse, but without knees that to sleep would have to lean against trees as it couldn't lie down! He too was human and would buy a far fetched idea that someone told him if it struck a consonant chord in his imagination. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 3/19/03 11:38:00 am<br></i>