Why is this guy so overrated?
>Only conquered France and half of Britain.
>In comparison, Alexander the Great had conquered Egypt, Persia, Turkey, Afghanistan and the Levantine region.
>Napoleon fought against several European nations and won.
>Genghis Khan rekt the Persians, conquered China and his descendants even reached Europe.
I could go on and on. He wasn't even the first Roman general to gain control over Rome, Sulla did it before him.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Go to bed, Brutus.
He is the only one with a month named after him.
>He is the only one with a month named after him.
Anon ...
Lmao true, but would Augustus not prove his point further
After conquering France he came back and conquered Italy too.
He inadvertently led to the creation of what we call Europe today, even Christianity and Islam likely would not be what they are today without him. He was one of the dominoes that set off a million other ones even if he didn't know it.
Wasn't that Alexander? Without him, the Achaemenids would've stayed in power for centuries and would've established several colonies in Europe like Carthage. Rome would've never expanded and israelites would flock to Persia. The world would be immensely different if there was a weaker leader in place of Alexander.
>the Achaemenids would've stayed in power for centuries and would've established several colonies in Europe like Carthage
They couldn't even hold onto Egypt properly or conquer Greece. What chance would they have against the far larger and more powerful Carthage or the Hyper warlike Central Italian peoples.
>far larger and more powerful Carthage
whot
Sentence leading on from
>They couldn't even hold onto Egypt properly or conquer Greece
They couldn't because of Alexander. They had a larger army and they would've definitely prevailed over Greece, Carthage, Rome under decades like Rome prevailed over Gaul if it weren't for Alexander who ended their empire in his short life span.
>They had a larger army and they would've definitely prevailed over Greece
Yet this never happened in real life, so there is no reason to expect it would happen again. They ended up fighting an independent Egypt for over 50 years despite overwhelming advantages and still took half a century to beat them. They weren't going to do shit.
Egyptians rebelling multiple times was primarily due to Greek interference you stupid frick, they were put down each and every time by the Persians.
>Egyptians rebelling multiple times was primarily due to Greek interference you stupid frick
Source?
let me remind you that gay alex is nothing without his papa philip
>Achaemenids would've stayed in power for centuries
No, it was in complete decline. Darius only came to power because the powerful eunuch who ran the empire needed a puppet.
fought against several European nations and won.
Napoleon was Caesar's biggest fanboy.
>Wasn't that Alexander?
By your logic that would be Cyrus because he established Persian Empire but then it would also be Nebuchadnezzar because Babylonia but it would be [insert great man from before the mentioned guy] and so on.
>He would've gotten Persia
Yeah, taking on a powerful and stable empire (unlike the wrecked and unstable Achaemenid Empire by the time of Alexander's conquests) with the said land having some of the most difficult "logistics nightmare".
Alexander and the amazing spawn location and situation from one eyed daddy Phillip.
Alexander was just a gay Twink chad hybrid who fought his wars more than he lead them.
>Alexander was just a gay Twink chad hybrid who fought his wars more than he lead them
Awesome
In what way exactly?
In this the providence of God is seen
t. Tom Holland
Because he reached for ultimate power and got it, even over other guys who might've done more to deserve it. Alexander, Napolean, and Genghis Khan were all in charge of way more volatile empires that disintegrated shortly after they died. Caesar was the richest and most powerful guy in one of the most "stable" empires of all time. Even though he got murdered for it his heir ended up fulfilling his legacy. And I'm not trying to shill the guy, he was amazing but more like the ultimate villain who basically won rather than some champion hero.
He would've gotten Persia too if they didn't kill him, and also conquer the Scythians, btfo the G*rmans on the way back to Rome, and become the God King of Western Eurasia.
I think it's more about his hardship on the campaign. Julius Caesar repeatedly get himself out from really difficult situations. Alesia two walls, Gauls Divide et Impera, stranded on Africa, outnumbered and peppered by cavalry Skirmishers, engineering race against Pompey, positioning war in his campaign at Iberia. He also very versatile and have fight against lot type of enemies:
Gaul chaotic Barbarians
German warriors
Fellow experienced Roman soldiers
North Africa Cavalry
> Gaul chaotic Barbarians
Gauls were hardly barbarians they had some of the highest metallurgical standards in Europe, the murmillo gladiator which literally translates as fishman was inspired by Gallic POWs fighting in the arena with scale mail and their cavalry was so good that Romans barely even bothered to raise their own cavalry they just hired Gallic mercenary cavalry
>hardly barbarians
Nude warriors did that specifically to show the world what an absolute madman they were, or at least how much drugs they took prior to battle. Literally everything in a Roman legionary’s kit: his mail armor, his montefortino helmet, and his gladius hispaniensis were all rip offs of Celtic designs
Lmao the cope. Celts and Gauls and the rest of eme we’re picking there ass in the woods, thinking about fairies and shit, while the Roman’s were building aqueducts and waging war with enemies across the sea.
Wasn’t so manly when they lost and got genocided except for the supple women for the legionaries
Divide and conquer is a b***h because it turns a proud warrior race into its own worst enemy
No matter what people think about Caesar, Alesia was a hell of a victory.
How come the Romans were so good at building? Motherfrickers just magic two sets of walls out of thin air.
>connquered gaul
>conquered britannia
>conquered italy
>conquered spain
>conquered greece and asia minor
>conquered nordafrica
>gained indirect control of egypt
>was outnumberd in every major battle he fought while doing so
why wouldn't you count the civil wars are you same gsg autist?
Besides Caesar greatness doesn't just come from his military skills, he was great or a genius at almost everything he ever did: lawyer politician orator lawmaker architect engineer writer womanizer etc
You could call him the most talented man to ever live and it wouldn't be a overstatment
>why wouldn't you count the civil wars
Romans weren't going to disintegrate over a conflict of two of their generals you shitskinned moron. Civil wars occurred frequently in the Roman Empire, with one man taking over as emperor. By your logic Rome had a military genius as emperor for most of it's years.
Alexander on the other hand killed a massive empire far stronger than Macedon and the allied greek states. He couldn't keep his conquered territorities and Greece under one rule due to his sudden death, but Persia remained under the rule of his Greek generals and the subsequent Seleucid dynasty for centuries. israelitelius isn't even in the same league as Alexander.
Alexander's empire crashed and burned without and his people were assimilated into local cultures. At most this introduced some Greekoid influence here and there but nothing world-changing.
>Weakened the Middle East for an entire millenium, ensuring European rule over Egypt, Levant, Syria and Anatolia until the rise of Islam.
>nothing world-changing
>Civil wars occurred frequently in the Roman Empire
Caesar was during the roman republic spastic, during the culmination of a series of civil wars escalating over 100 or so years that was thoroughly fricking the the roman world, hardly comparable to the year of the 4 emperors or most empire civil wars pre crisis
Lmao dude just admit you’re gay
>Romans weren't going to disintegrate over a conflict of two of their generals
homie, you have no idea how close Rome was to permanently splitting during the Crisis of the 3rd Century before Aurelian (himself Caesar-tier) whipped it back into shape.
He's a political genius who worked for it, Alexander meanwhile inherited his position and the awesome army, he's a political and organisational midwit.
You answer this question by actually reading about and looking at Caesar's military campaigns not some meme map. Caesar won so many battles he shouldn't have, he was a military genius. He mostly fought other similarly armed and trained Roman armies too, Alexander is a bad analogue.
He did a lot of things domestically that were way ahead of their time. Giving land to the poor, cancelling debt, providing for his soldiers after the war etc.
I agree. He's overrated
> conquered Gaul
> beat Germans and invaded Germania
> invaded Britain and won, left because frick it
> invaded Italy with a single legion
> outmanouvred a moron with an army of 15 000, causing said army to surrender
> outmarched Pompey and ran him out of Italy
> marched to Spain and won against Pompeys most veteran legions without much issue, Ilerda was a fricking masterpiece
> marched to Greece and won
> sailed to Egypt, won Alexandria, won the battle of Nile, basically conquering Egypt for ROme in all but name
> marched across the Levant and east solidifying Roman rule
> marched to Anatolia, destroyed the last Pontic threat, redrew the borders of other kingdoms as he saw fit
> literally appointed the first Roman puppet king of Bosporus as a side throw
> sailed to Africa, won a load of smaller engagements there
> battle Ruspina, another fricking masterpiece, wikipedia and some youtuber erroneously depict it as a defeat or stalemate, even though it was an obvious and clear roflstomp by Caesar
> battle Thapsus, Africa conquered
> rulers of Maghreb/Mauretania submit to Caesar's authority
> rebellion in Spain again, Caesar conquers Spain again
Do hissies really hissyfit?
t.seething Gaul
Same reason Lenin is so overrated. Stalin had to deify him to secure his own position.
Except most of what we know about Caesar came directly from his own account. He didn't need to be deified. Every fricking Roman already knew how great he was
He died for our sins.
Silvio Berlusconi is still at it?
Conquering Gaul so thoroughly is more impressive than what Alexander did.
The grandeur of a conquest is drawn from the number and ingenuity of the general’s victories in battle, not the land area brought under control