Dear All, So Julius was in my county to butcher many people, I think he was one of the great mass murderers in history, I will visit the place soon with my MD... http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/12/10/julius-caesar-battlefield-discovered-in-southeastern-netherlands/
I hate to break it to you, but just about any leader of any great empire back in ancient times would have a lot of blood on his hands. The world was very different back then. There was no international relations, no international laws, no notion of a modern nation state, and no concept of human rights. You either killed other people, or they would march down and kill your people. I dare say that Julius Caesar was no worse than any other leader around at that time, it just so happens that he had a more powerful army and was able to conquer the barbarians. Had the Gauls been in his position they would have done the same to the Romans.
According to numerous historians, if the estimates of the casualties of Caesars conquests in Gaul and 'Germania' are anywhere accurate, he rates as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, matched only by Attila and a few others. And the motivation for all this death and destruction, like Attila, was almost entirely due to a quest for glory, power and wealth-----and not based on any crucial issue(s) of 'national' survival.
I doubt the casualties are anywhere near the actual numbers. The man was a master propagandist. He wrote his own books using third party tense for himself so he could make it seem like someone else was writing about him. I have no doubt that he downplayed the number of soldiers he had, and his own casualties, while severely overestimating the size of the enemy and the casualties they took, just so he could make the people back home in Rome believe he was the next Alexander the Great. Remember, he compared himself and his achievements to Alexander the Great on several occasions in his writings. When you read Caesar's accounts, it's probably 50% true and 50% fiction. Was he actually there at that battle? Probably yes. Did it last as long as it did, was it as hard fought and were the numbers of enemy killed as large as he said? Probably not. There was a lot of incentive to exaggerate his own genius...turning himself into a living legend in the minds of all Romans.
I tend to believe the number of Gauls killed were not so exaggerated. Remember Caesar was censured by the Senate for the annihilation of one tribe (I can't recall the name).
Supposedly he killed a million "men" in the gallic wars. Considering he had anywhere between 4 and 11 legions (let's say average of 7), that's like 2 kills per man(combatant) per year. A rate the US army had not come close to achieving on modern day battlefields with all the tech at its disposal...
Oh please, the people condemning him were his political rivals....Pompey, Cato, Cisero, etc. We are not talking here about impartial people genuinely outraged at something Caesar did, but rather his hated political rivals who wanted to see Caesar dead or banished. They had a lot to gain from tarnishing his reputation. That they sensored him for something doesn't mean much.
Of course you are right; however, they had to have something to hold over him and the complete annihilation of a people was an issue of Caesar's own making.
There are no goodies and baddies in war - everyone behaves atrociously. You just need to hope you're on the winning side.
Just saw this and thought it relevant http://www.inquisitr.com/2627545/julius-caesar-battleground-where-caesar-killed-150000-discovered/
Recently watched an old episode of "Ancients Behaving Badly" on him from the history channel. It is on Youtube if anyone is interested in watching it. Their 'experts' basically concluded that he wasn't a psychopath since he killed with larger goals in mind, not for the sake of killing. Still I would try to stay well clear of the dude if I lived in ancient times.
I think what was the basic bone of contention was whether the estimates of those killed was or was not an exaggerated fabrication : Caesar murdered 100,000's in non-battles and 10 X that much in Battles of conquest, regardless of whether he was merely a 'sociopath' or a desperately ambitious man of the times 'blessed' with extraordinary leadership qualities-----he was one of the world's most prolific 'murderers'. BTW: I recall some 'clever' remark made by a historian to the effect: If all those killed in all the past battles of antiquity were totaled...humanity would now be extinct.
