Counting Battles As Touchdowns

[Felix Marcellus]

Those of you reading the "Caesar or Alexander" or the "Who's greater, Caesar or Alexander" threads may know why I've created this thread. But for those who don't I'll explain. Someone here has contended that the number of battles a person fights can determine their greatness or the fact that they are greater than someone who didn't fight as many battles. Well my buddy Sun Tzu told me "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

 

Anyway, what do you think. Please explain your response.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

You really didn't get the point.The measure of a nation's strength is how nuch it can resist against the invader and how many battles it can fight against a superior adversary.As for your question,indeed the number of the battles in which a general is victorious is considered by many a way of measuring his skill.(Gaul was much more powerful,millitarily speaking,than Persia.)

[Primus Pilus]

I do agree that fighting alot of battles and surviving against a superior opponent would be an indication of a generals ability, however, one must then prove that the opponent is actually superior and put both armies on an equal footing.

 

The numbers of battles fought may indicate greatness of a general but they may also indicate a great number of things. Troop experience and moral vs. the opponent, number of available fighting men, supply and logisitics, terrain, fortifications, etc. may all play a major role in this 'tally of battles'. If an army defeats a quality opponent in a single or relatively few battles, wouldn't that indicate that the victor was a 'great' general.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

The main problem is that the Persian troops were quite weak.I think that it is clearly proven that the poor guys had an insuficient leadership and were poorly trained,whereas the Gauls were quite an enemy to Caesar.

[Primus Pilus]

The main problem is that the Persian troops were quite weak.I think that it is clearly proven that the poor guys had an insuficient leadership and were poorly trained,whereas the Gauls were quite an enemy to Caesar.

14390[/snapback]

 

Yes indeed, many (most?) agree with this assessment. Sometimes it is simply how we state things that get people all worked up. Thank you for making the clear clarification relating directly to the Caesar/Alexander discussion.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

Of course Alexander was undefeated as he fought too few battles.I personally believe he wouldn't have ever been able to conquer India which was so much different than the desert throughout he had earlier marched with his armies.Number of battles won/Number of battles fought=The general's grade.Of course he has to fight more than 15 battles.And to inform you,Caesar took all 800 cities in Gaul.That is why I don't add the sieges to rhe number of battles.(for Felix Marcellus)He actually wasn't defeated in Britain(Primus Pilus).He may have dealt with serious casualties but didn't lose any battle as he even returned next year to collect tribute.His only 'defeat' was at Gergovia where he lost a legion.At Dyrachium he just wante to make Pompey fight a battle,you have to recognize it was a pretty intelligent maneuver.(he didn't lose more than 1000 men)

[Marcus_Aurelius]

See this page if you really want to know what Caesar did in Britain:http://heraklia.fws1.com/battles/The%20Gallic%20Wars/britain/index.html

[Primus Pilus]

See this page if you really want to know what Caesar did in Britain:http://heraklia.fws1.com/battles/The%20Gallic%20Wars/britain/index.html

14399[/snapback]

 

Thanks, I've already Ms. Cross's entire site and her work on Roman Women. She also has an excellent account on Augustus. Mind you most members of this forum are very well read on the subject of ancient Rome, and implying that we are not, is yet another irritant.

 

Now I'll point you to my own account of Caesar's affair in Britain just as a matter of course.

First Invasion of Britain

 

I am a big admirer of Caesar and his accomplishments. His crossing to Britain was a huge coup from a propoganda perspective, and he did exact a relatively minor amount of tribute. However, his crossing did not lead to any lasting degree of Roman dominance of the island. His presence was hotly resisted and even though the second invasion did provide a measure of 'face saving', he was fortunate to escape after the first invasion.

 

Why did he return the second time? Because the first time was unsuccessful. Had he defeated the Britons enough for them to submit he would've left victorious with hostages and the proper tribute. Instead he had to go back to Gaul, regroup and return with a larger more intimidating force. Did Caesar get what he wanted out of his crossing? Of course he did. He subdued a part of the coastal region and souther Britain and gathered even more fame. Just like his crossing of the Rhine, while impressive, did not end in the subjugation of Germania, the crossing of the canal did not lead to the subjugation of Britain.

 

In the end, the first invasion was a minor defeat because his goal was not accomplished. He rectified it on the second invasion but the first still counts. While Gergovia is a defeat and he followed it up with the brilliant siege of Alesia, we still recognize Gergovia as a defeat.

[Virgil61]

A battle count isn't the sole measure of military greatness. METT-T [Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops and Time] factors as well as fielded weapons systems vary far too greatly to simply use a battle count as the determing factor.

[Tobias]

I was reading a book on Caesar's career the other day. Although a fair amount of it was fictitious, it does have an interesting point. Vercingetorix said in this book that Rome's invasion of Gaul was far more subtle than a germanic invasion ever would be. Thus, a germanic invasion was more easy for the gauls to resist, as it would probably be more tyrrannic and harmful, giving the gauls a strong moral advantage. Caesar's campaign, however, was not. Given, he was not merciful to some tribes (That Belgae tribe he sold as slaves comes to mind) and some of his victories were quite crushing, but Caesar was infinetly fascinated with the idea of taking war to an enemy's mind. If Rome's dominance was introduced to the Gauls physically and harmfully, then the Gauls could resist. But if it was introduced mentally, with attacks on things that gauls considered untouchable (i.e. Caesar's felling of oak forests that caused a tribe, i think the Mandubii, to retreat, shocked and grieving that anyone could cut down the "nemer", or oak.), then the Gauls would have no hope of resisting. An enemy is not necessarily conquered with mere strength of arms and by many victories. The enemy has not just got to see that Rome was more mighty, they had to know that Rome was more mighty. That was Vercingetorix's argument in this book, that they would continue reisiting Caesar because his approach would mean the more effective conquest of Gaul. And that is why i voted no to this poll. The people of a nation will never be truely conquered by mere arms alone, physically. They have to be taught that they must necessarily loose whenever they tried to resist, mentally. And there, Rome was great. They used examples of their richness and power and the examples of other tribes living in peace and prosperity under wise (lol) Roman rule. This, and a wish to live as Romans did, often persuaded peoples to submit to Rome without using brute force and "making a desert and calling it peace." And that is what makes a great nation; a nation that does not have to kill, kill, kill to gain a people's subjection. Thank you, i'm done now

[Felix Marcellus]

I was reading a book on Caesar's career the other day. Although a fair amount of it was fictitious, it does have an interesting point. Vercingetorix said in this book that Rome's invasion of Gaul was far more subtle than a germanic invasion ever would be. Thus, a germanic invasion was more easy for the gauls to resist, as it would probably be more tyrrannic and harmful, giving the gauls a strong moral advantage. Caesar's campaign, however, was not. Given, he was not merciful to some tribes (That Belgae tribe he sold as slaves comes to mind) and some of his victories were quite crushing, but Caesar was infinetly fascinated with the idea of taking war to an enemy's mind. If Rome's dominance was introduced to the Gauls physically and harmfully, then the Gauls could resist. But if it was introduced mentally, with attacks on things that gauls considered untouchable (i.e. Caesar's felling of oak forests that caused a tribe, i think the Mandubii, to retreat, shocked and grieving that anyone could cut down the "nemer", or oak.), then the Gauls would have no hope of resisting. An enemy is not necessarily conquered with mere strength of arms and by many victories. The enemy has not just got to see that Rome was more mighty, they had to know that Rome was more mighty. That was Vercingetorix's argument in this book, that they would continue reisiting Caesar because his approach would mean the more effective conquest of Gaul. And that is why i voted no to this poll. The people of a nation will never be truely conquered by mere arms alone, physically. They have to be taught that they must necessarily loose whenever they tried to resist, mentally. And there, Rome was great. They used examples of their richness and power and the examples of other tribes living in peace and prosperity under wise (lol) Roman rule. This, and a wish to live as Romans did, often persuaded peoples to submit to Rome without using brute force and "making a desert and calling it peace." And that is what makes a great nation; a nation that does not have to kill, kill, kill to gain a people's subjection. Thank you, i'm done now

14544[/snapback]

 

Outstanding post! Clearly demonstrates an understanding of TOTAL WAR!

[Tobias]

Other parts of this included his crossings of the Rhine and his crossing the English channel. He did them to show everyone that he, and Rome, was capable of anything.

[Virgil61]

I was reading a book on Caesar's career the other day...

Outstanding post! Clearly demonstrates an understanding of TOTAL WAR!

14591[/snapback]

 

It really brings to my mind the realization that JC had quite a grasp of PSYOP [psychological operations]. Interesting.

[Hamilcar Barca]

Mind you most members of this forum are very well read on the subject of ancient Rome, and implying that we are not, is yet another irritant.

 

Now I'll point you to my own account of Caesar's affair in Britain just as a matter of course.

 

Thank you for finally mentioning this PP. Coming to this forum (where the 15 or so core members are increadibly well read on ancient history) and then reciting common facts in the tone that people are ignorant of it is insulting. What counts is coherent opinions and reasoning for these events. Having said that, if you are knowledgable on something that is perhaps generally lesser known e.g. Galerius' Persian expedition, the battles of the 6th Century BC, Aetis and Bonafaces Civil war etc, by all means share it. But with regards to events such as the Punic Wars, Gallic Wars or civil wars of the Republic etc - Please don't bother reciting them, you are imparting knoledge upon no one. Do by all means raise interesting issues or opinions on these events - it is encouraged to do so - as long as you back your argument up with solid facts and examples.

[Ursus]

I was always struck by the fact that when the king of Pergamum died in 133, he simply left his country to the Romans in his will. With Roman economic, military and diplomatic pressure bearing down on the Hellenistic east, he simply figured to go with the flow and hand over the keys to his kingdom without a fight.

 

Surely this was one of the most spectacular events in history. A rich kingdom being handed over to a foreign power without a drop of blood shed, because the strategic clamp around his area was tighter than a drum.

 

War is basically a means to an end rather than an end onto itself. War is costly, strategy is usually more profitable in the long run. The Romans proved they were strategic thinkers and could gain great boons without even fighting battles.

 

 

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

 

 

Well, Confucius would have looked at the Pergamum incident and smiled at the Romans. :-)