Most underrated ancient Military?

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,572
Australia
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?
His "version" is simply a product of his imagination, based on some vague (and incorrect) allusions to the sources. While it's worth making a post here and there for the benefit of less experienced readers, I wouldn't bother getting too far into it. Earlier he was claiming even bolder things about the war that don't exist in the source material in any form whatever. The guy hasn't given the sources more than a cursory and superficial glance so he can rile people here.
 
Nov 2018
183
Wales
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?
It is true that I question received wisdom. I spent several years trying to track down the 'real' King Arthur assuming an Anglo Saxon invasion existed. Once the AS invasion was proved false, the foundation of all my years of work was destroyed. I consider that a plus.
 
Nov 2018
183
Wales
Caesar treated the Suebi as one tribe.
Really? He needed a bridge to initially attack the Suebi. Did he really need to rebuild it for his later incursion, or were the enemy elsewhere?
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.
But Caesar did not say that. He clearly defined the two 'tribal entities' as different. The fact they were in different places may be a clue.
 
Nov 2018
183
Wales
His "version" is simply a product of his imagination, based on some vague (and incorrect) allusions to the sources. While it's worth making a post here and there for the benefit of less experienced readers, I wouldn't bother getting too far into it. Earlier he was claiming even bolder things about the war that don't exist in the source material in any form whatever. The guy hasn't given the sources more than a cursory and superficial glance so he can rile people here.
Again with the insults :). It appears to be your thing, when you cannot effectively counter a point you do not agree with.

What I desire, actually demand from you, is why I am totally wrong. I want you to clinically destroy my point of view. I learn from my mistakes, and would appreciate an increased learning curve on the subject.
 
Mar 2018
780
UK
Again with the insults :). It appears to be your thing, when you cannot effectively counter a point you do not agree with.

What I desire, actually demand from you, is why I am totally wrong. I want you to clinically destroy my point of view. I learn from my mistakes, and would appreciate an increased learning curve on the subject.
Your not *totally wrong*. There is some infinitesimal probability that what you described is what truly happened. And we will never know.

But the balance of probabilities based on the only source material, the picture we can build of Caesar's mind and of the capabilities of the Britons/Gauls/Germans/Romans, point completely against your hypothesis. I've asked you twice within 24h why your scenario is likely - not just hypothetically possible - but actually likely, and you've dodged both times. I can only deduce that you either agree that it is unlikely, or you don't care about how likely it is.

But the rest of us do. Something sufficiently unlikely is best treated as false, just for sheer simplicity. Otherwise we'd have to consider the possibility that Caesar never existed and was invented my Augustus to increase his legitimacy and we'd never get anywhere at all. Best to keep just the likeliest (or a handful of the likeliest) theories and discard the rest. The idea that "Britons had an army which strategically beat the greatest general of his time, at the head of one of the greatest armies, but there is no textual or archaeological evidence of it" lies firmly in the discard pile.
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,572
Australia
I have no interest in wasting overmuch time on obvious agenda accounts that demonstrate a total and intentional unfamiliarity with the sources. You can read about your latest error here:
Caesar's Rhine bridges - Wikipedia
He did build 2 bridges (so yet another error on your part). The bridge wasn't "rebuilt". It was destroyed after each use, because why would you leave a bridge up to let the enemy use. 2 different bridges were built in roughly the same location, to invade the same tribes (in particular, the Suebi). Again, you should just stop posting about this subject matter until you read more.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2018
183
Wales
I have no interest in wasting overmuch time on obvious agenda accounts that demonstrate a total and intentional unfamiliarity with the sources. You can read about your latest error here:
Caesar's Rhine bridges - Wikipedia
He did build 2 bridges (so yet another error on your part). The bridge wasn't "rebuilt". It was destroyed after each use, because why would you leave a bridge up to let the enemy use. 2 different bridges were built in roughly the same location, to invade the same tribes (in particular, the Suebi). Again, you should just stop posting about this subject matter until you read more.
You are correct. There were two bridges, although in my defence, it was against two different foes, so we're both wrong and right. The first were the Sicambri, the 2nd were the Treviri.

However, concerning Britain, GJC would not have felt the need for a 2nd invasion if the first had been successful. Tacitus, while talking up GJC's invasions of Britain, pointed out his attempt was a portent and indication of the future of Britain (ie under Roman rule) rather than a success.

Again, please tell me what my obvious agenda is :confused:?
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,572
Australia
You make it clear with every post you haven't read the materials, and are just going back for a cursory glance every time you are called out, because you're just some agenda account. You just did it again. We were not "both right and wrong". I am right, and you are wrong. You are also wrong in your latest claim they were "different foes"; in both instances he pursued the Suebi (among others tribes). You'd know that if you'd read the materials instead of substituting them for your imagination.
 
Nov 2018
183
Wales
You make it clear with every post you haven't read the materials, and are just going back for a cursory glance every time you are called out, because you're just some agenda account. You just did it again. We were not "both right and wrong". I am right, and you are wrong. You are also wrong in your latest claim they were "different foes"; in both instances he pursued the Suebi (among others tribes). You'd know that if you'd read the materials instead of substituting them for your imagination.
Are you sure? They were different specific tribes according to Caesar. However, I was wrong concerning the bridges. Unlike you, and you will notice this from all posts on all forums, I will immediately change my position as decent information comes to light.

Again, what is my obvious agenda? You have piqued my curiosity? My initial foray into this thread was that the right military strategy can reap benefits well beyond an apparent military's capability. This was almost certainly true of the British in 55 BC, and still with a reasonable probability of being true in 54 BC.
 

Caesarmagnus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,572
Australia
Go read book 4 and 6 of the commentaries and you'll find the answer. The Suebi (or Suevi) are mentioned in both, and I'm pretty sure (contrary to your bizarre assertion) that he wasn't crossing the Rhine to fight a "Celtic" version of the Suebi. That's all the time you get from me right now, and it's not even time I'm spending on you. It's for other people reading this who might stumble into this thread and inadvertently come to conclusion your points have validity.