Most underrated ancient Military?

So you don't buy his reasons for why he left Briton. Fair enough. However, just because you reject that it was the moon/tides/weather, doesn't imply that it was the enemy. It could be the political situation in Rome, the military situation in Gaul, that his men were fed up of the Island, that he missed his mistress back home or literally a million other reasons. It is absurd to conclude it was the enemy just because you believe Caesar lied about it being the weather.

This is not just the common problem of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but something more like "rejection of evidence is not evidence of the opposite".
This is the problem of history. Just because it is written does not mean it is true. This is especially true of any work that cannot be substantiated by other means. Of course, it may not be false either. What we can be reasonably sure of is that there will always be bias in any work, intentional or not.

The reason I don't buy GJC defeat of the Britons in his first attempted invasion, is that he required a second expedition against the same foe. Given that the natives were said to have nothing of value, we can be reasonably sure it was as much to save face, as to conquer anything. Of course, he may truly have thought he achieved what he wanted, at least to satisfy public opinion where it mattered.
 
But CaesarMagnus is not so much arguing raids for profit but rather expeditions for PR, scaring the enemy and reconnaissance. If Britain was not profitable this would also make it unappealing as a target for conquest.
I would agree with you if he only attempted one incursion, but he required two. This more than implies at least the first raid failed in its intent.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
I would agree with you if he only attempted one incursion, but he required two. This more than implies at least the first raid failed in its intent.
I agree. Also, he didn't colonize Britain.afrer his second atrempt, so why would he need a second atrempt unless he failed the first time? Had he set up a permanent occupation after the first invasion, then that would be doing something diffedent. The Britain's don't seem rich enough to make.plunder a goal

The only reason I could see for a second invasion was if the British promised something they didn't deliver on, and he invaded to enforce that promise, but I don't see anything like that in the record.
 
Mar 2018
523
UK
This is the problem of history. Just because it is written does not mean it is true. This is especially true of any work that cannot be substantiated by other means. Of course, it may not be false either. What we can be reasonably sure of is that there will always be bias in any work, intentional or not.

The reason I don't buy GJC defeat of the Britons in his first attempted invasion, is that he required a second expedition against the same foe. Given that the natives were said to have nothing of value, we can be reasonably sure it was as much to save face, as to conquer anything. Of course, he may truly have thought he achieved what he wanted, at least to satisfy public opinion where it mattered.
So he had to return to Gaul after the first attempt before reaching his goals (which everyone but you accepts was probably to achieve some victory for propaganda). There is still no evidence that he was militarily defeated on the first attempt. Even if we discount the only source on the matter a military defeat is still not the likeliest or most sensible explanation. Remember, he was literally conquering another country made up of a dozen tribes at that point. It should be clear that he wasn't going to be able to spend considerable time on a far off mission.

Here's an alternative explanation, please state why yours is more likely:
1) Caesar lands in Briton with 1 legion to be the first Roman to ever do so
2) Does a bit of exploration and sees the people are poor and hostile
3) Goal partially accomplished, and with limited resources available to him, he goes back to Gaul
4) Comes back with a larger army, for a punitive mission, with the added advantage of giving him lots of personal glory for home
5) Kerb stomps the locals into dust
6) Mission accomplished, he goes back to Gaul before the weather turns and he's stuck on a useless island
 
So he had to return to Gaul after the first attempt before reaching his goals (which everyone but you accepts was probably to achieve some victory for propaganda). There is still no evidence that he was militarily defeated on the first attempt. Even if we discount the only source on the matter a military defeat is still not the likeliest or most sensible explanation. Remember, he was literally conquering another country made up of a dozen tribes at that point. It should be clear that he wasn't going to be able to spend considerable time on a far off mission.

Here's an alternative explanation, please state why yours is more likely:
1) Caesar lands in Briton with 1 legion to be the first Roman to ever do so
2) Does a bit of exploration and sees the people are poor and hostile
3) Goal partially accomplished, and with limited resources available to him, he goes back to Gaul
4) Comes back with a larger army, for a punitive mission, with the added advantage of giving him lots of personal glory for home
5) Kerb stomps the locals into dust
6) Mission accomplished, he goes back to Gaul before the weather turns and he's stuck on a useless island
Your suggestion is plausible, although I'm wondering why you want me to repost what I've already said?

Personally, I believe GJC made a rush and rash decision to invade. This was because he had easily defeated the Belgae, and since the Belgae had in turn said to have easily beaten the British, he thought it would be a walkover.

He also lands with two legions of foot, with reinforcements of cavalry arriving later. One legion would have been enough for your scenario imho.

However, thank you for an intelligent and insult free reply :cool:.
 
Mar 2018
523
UK
Your suggestion is plausible, although I'm wondering why you want me to repost what I've already said?

Personally, I believe GJC made a rush and rash decision to invade. This was because he had easily defeated the Belgae, and since the Belgae had in turn said to have easily beaten the British, he thought it would be a walkover.

He also lands with two legions of foot, with reinforcements of cavalry arriving later. One legion would have been enough for your scenario imho.

However, thank you for an intelligent and insult free reply :cool:.
I don't want you to repeat what you've said. I want to know why you believe your version is more likely. From what you've said here - and in other threads - it seems you simply like to believe things because they go against the majority opinion. Is that what's happening here?
 
Jan 2015
3,370
Australia
One was Celt (Belgae), one was Germanic. Perhaps more thought on facts than insults in future is a reasonable suggestion.
Caesar treated the Suebi as one tribe. Whether later authors viewed them as more disparate isn't relevant to the purposes discussed here. The passages about crossing into Germany and coming into conflict with the Suebi clearly concern the German Suebi, not a Celtic tribe (you can tell because they were on the other side of the Rhine, and thus were for Caesar's purposes Germanic). You're wrong yet again I'm afraid.
 

Similar History Discussions