Caesar vs Trajan

[bushbush]

who was a greater military commander?

[Romano-Dacis]

Trajan faced and defeated some very strong and consolidated enemies like the Dacians and Parthians, while Caesar faced a lot of divided people, like the Celts and even his own Romans. I think Caesar had a lot more opportunities to prove himself in the military field. Trajan pretty much had nothing valuable left to conquer and what he thought was worth conquering... he did conquer. I recall some authors stating of Trajan "His intelligence was more intuitive than learned [yet] while sparing in his knowledge, he was an eloquent and adequate speaker on many matters" I think Pliny the Younger also wrote of him "you were scarcely out of your swaddling bands when you augmented the glory which won your father his laurels, when you already deserved the name Germanicus, when the sound of your approach struck terror into the supercilious hearts of the

savage Parthians, and when the Rhine and Euphrates united in their admiration of you."
I don't think we can just dismiss this as hyperbole. Trajan was a very capable military man at a young age. He certainly had a very decorated career before becoming emperor.

I think Trajan was a far better administrator than Caesar, a more prolific builder and contributor to Roman culture, but when it comes to military commander there is a very strong case for Caesar because he had to work with less and he performed some very daring strategic moves, both politically and militarily.

[Monarchist]

I will never stop arguing for Trajan. His campaigns in the Balkans alone impress me beyond belief. His form of limited, family-wealth government and administration gives me a certain awe, and he made sure that it carried on that way through Hadrian. Personally, Caesar comes across as a bit of an arrogant jerk, whereas Trajan always gave me the impression of humility, or of quiet power. You may say "what does that have to do with his leadership?", and I would answer that the way a person carries himself is very important to leadership. Trajan stopped and listened to old wenches by the olive trees, and Caesar was ... well, nothing to be admired, in my opinion.

[Boyar Son]

Caesar fought a war and a political game at the same time, faced off against and beat what Romans consider the best general of the age pompey, faced armies much larger than his, had the genius not to fight it until they were divided (unlike some people who'd rather see him fight it all at one time), he came from a humble family (compared to the rest in Rome), came in as a new man and worked all the way to dictator, got rivals Crassus and Pompey to work together, he set up the triumvirate didn't he?, fought several Roman armies and won, became dictator of Rome, forgave his enemy Brutus, practically MADE the future seat of 'dictator for life' which continued on thru augustus as imperator.

I mean, i consider M. Aurelius better than trajan, look what he had to deal with.

Oh lawd, Caesar Wins Bar None. you trajan fans couldn't see a great even if his name was made a title signifying co-emperor.

[hellheaven1987]

Caesar fought a war and a political game at the same time, faced off against and beat what Romans consider the best general of the age pompey, faced armies much larger than his, had the genius not to fight it until they were divided (unlike some people who'd rather see him fight it all at one time), he came from a humble family (compared to the rest in Rome), came in as a new man and worked all the way to dictator, got rivals Crassus and Pompey to work together, he set up the triumvirate didn't he?, fought several Roman armies and won, became dictator of Rome, forgave his enemy Brutus, practically MADE the future seat of 'dictator for life' which continued on thru augustus as imperator.

Na, apartly he lost his political game to Republican and got assassined; that could only say Caesar lost Civil War politically in the end by failing to either convinced his enemy joining his side or completely destroyed them.

However, Trajan, similarly, also failed to convinced his enemy and lost politically, as his Parthia campaign shows.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

Ceaser was very impressive in all his campaigns but Trajan fought a empire which had been troubling rome for ages and trashed them also dacia was an impressive invasion against a strong enemy

[bushbush]

i don't know about political skills though but militarily Caesar conquered more with less resources than Trajan had at his disposal. Just my view.

Ceaser was very impressive in all his campaigns but Trajan fought a empire which had been troubling rome for ages and trashed them also dacia was an impressive invasion against a strong enemy

dacia was impressive (though i would argue some of caesar's armies were greater challenges, like the Pompeian forces), but it wasn't an empire.

[Boyar Son]

Weren't the Roman forces Caesar fought a lot of the time recruits or fairly green troops? And then the Gauls were painfully divided and way past their prime. It seems to me like Caesar just got himself in a good position on the battlefield amongst divided and sometimes inexperienced enemies, won, and then wrote a lot about himself at length. Caesar was all "Oh what's that Senate? I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am." and then *stabby stab stab* Caesar = X_x

I don't really remember many of Caesar's contemporaries singing his praises either. It seems that he sang alone and often and it is only because his writings survived unlike Trajan that people like to idolize him.

Trajan's planned campaign was insane. I think one of the routes to the east was to go invade over the black sea and into Asia that way. Could you imagine if Trajan was younger? I think he could have reached India and perhaps some more considering how well the Roman Empire was doing at the time.

There is this one quote by a senator during Hadrian's reign. after being too critical of Hadrian, the senator 'stepped back' on his comment, when asked by his friends and fellow sentors he said something along the lines of "isn't the man in control of 30 legions the most intelligent of all?" (this meaning, one or two words off sorry).

Point is, you. dont. criticize. the. Imperator!

My vote goes to Trajan for the whole "underrated" aspect as well. It's sad that the optimus princeps of the Roman world is reduced to a paragraph in most Roman history books.

Trajan had a thing for boys. Where's your God now? (i kid i kid don't flame me)

Ceaser was very impressive in all his campaigns but Trajan fought a empire which had been troubling rome for ages and trashed them also dacia was an impressive invasion against a strong enemy

Give me a time machine, i will save caesar so he can continue with destroying Parthia.

i don't know about political skills though but militarily Caesar conquered more with less resources than Trajan had at his disposal. Just my view.



dacia was impressive (though i would argue some of caesar's armies were greater challenges, like the Pompeian forces), but it wasn't an empire.

NOOOO BUSHBUSH DELETE THREAD TOO MANY TRAJAN SUPPORTERS

[Frederich Barbarossa]

I vote Trajan. His military conquests in Dacia were beautiful. Though he had more military resources then Ceaser, he was actually planning to follow in Alexanders footsteps, but his old age held him back. He won in Parthia a lot, and yes this Empire had been meddling with Rome even before Ceaser! And Trajan was the only emperor to have thrashed them! I mean Ceaser is god but I have to vote Trajan. I love both as Leaders, but Trajan, because he is far too underrated. Ceaser faced divided opponents, though with few resources, it was easier then against Empires.


Picture this. A school yard, you are Ceaser, and you see a group of kids your age. Their all fighting and arguing. They commence to take it to a physical standard, and commence a school yard beat down. Ceaser comes and thrashes one kid, and slowly hits them in their weak spots, until becoming Emperor.

Picture this now. A school yard, you are Ceaser, and you see a group of kids your age. Their all friends and see you, and wish to bully you. But you have a line of Friends backing you up, you all make a charge. XXXXX


Not great examples but show differences.

[Ciabhán]

I vote Trajan. His military conquests in Dacia were beautiful. Though he had more military resources then Ceaser, he was actually planning to follow in Alexanders footsteps, but his old age held him back. He won in Parthia a lot, and yes this Empire had been meddling with Rome even before Ceaser! And Trajan was the only emperor to have thrashed them! I mean Ceaser is god but I have to vote Trajan. I love both as Leaders, but Trajan, because he is far too underrated. Ceaser faced divided opponents, though with few resources, it was easier then against Empires.


Picture this. A school yard, you are Ceaser, and you see a group of kids your age. Their all fighting and arguing. They commence to take it to a physical standard, and commence a school yard beat down. Ceaser comes and thrashes one kid, and slowly hits them in their weak spots, until becoming Emperor.

Picture this now. A school yard, you are Ceaser, and you see a group of kids your age. Their all friends and see you, and wish to bully you. But you have a line of Friends backing you up, you all make a charge. XXXXX


Not great examples but show differences.

Actually the very fact that Caesar exploited his enemies divisiveness and used the enemy of his enemy as temporary allies many times is part of his military and political 'genius'(I don't think he was a genius literally but you get the point). Why be a hammer when all you need is a scalpel?

[hellheaven1987]

Actually the very fact that Caesar exploited his enemies divisiveness and used the enemy of his enemy as temporary allies many times is part of his military and political 'genius'(I don't think he was a genius literally but you get the point). Why be a hammer when all you need is a scalpel?

No, Caesar did not have that intention because:

1. He never planned to conquer Gaul or put Gaul under Roman control; his objective was to go to trouble spot, plundering and earn money (yes, his Gaulic campaign was sololy for earning money, nothing else).

2. Because lack of military objective, he did not have strategy during Gaulic campaign; all he did was "followed where the troubles were, and earned money from that".

3. Because lack of strategy, he definately did not use the divisiveness of Gauls for political war. Instead, from Caesar's writing it was more like Gauls and Germans fighting eachother naturally and Caesar just went into an already existing trouble and earning money (again, we need to have in mind that Caesar's Gaulic campaign was sololy for money).

4. For Civil War, I have already explained in other posts that he lost political war in the end.

[Ciabhán]

No, Caesar did not have that intention because:

1. He never planned to conquer Gaul or put Gaul under Roman control; his objective was to go to trouble spot, plundering and earn money (yes, his Gaulic campaign was sololy for earning money, nothing else).

2. Because lack of military objective, he did not have strategy during Gaulic campaign; all he did was "followed where the troubles were, and earned money from that".

3. Because lack of strategy, he definately did not use the divisiveness of Gauls for political war. Instead, from Caesar's writing it was more like Gauls and Germans fighting eachother naturally and Caesar just went into an already existing trouble and earning money (again, we need to have in mind that Caesar's Gaulic campaign was sololy for money).

4. For Civil War, I have already explained in other posts that he lost political war in the end.

He intentionally used the fact that the Gauls were divided into small groups to his advantage. His reason for invading doesn't matter. In fact I have seen it put forth that he initially planned on invading Dacia for the gold mines, then realised that Gaul not only provided more money but that because they were so scattered easier battles. When it comes down to it all Roman campaigns were for money. Trajan stopped beating the bloody hell out of Dacia after he took the gold mines...I wonder what his plan was. Probably something along the lines of get money, kick some irritating folks arses in the process.

[hellheaven1987]

He intentionally used the fact that the Gauls were divided into small groups to his advantage. His reason for invading doesn't matter. In fact I have seen it put forth that he initially planned on invading Dacia for the gold mines, then realised that Gaul not only provided more money but that because they were so scattered easier battles. When it comes down to it all Roman campaigns were for money. Trajan stopped beating the bloody hell out of Dacia after he took the gold mines...I wonder what his plan was. Probably something along the lines of get money, kick some irritating folks arses in the process.

No, don't garbage around; Caesar did not even plan to go Gaul at beginning nor did he realize Gaul would provide him more money. It was more because southern Gaulic tribes (ally with Roman) suddenly asked him to help them repelling the new Germanic invasion, which Gauls sucked about, and Caesar found "hey, why not joined an existing trouble instead creating an unjustified war against Dancia??" and agreed to help Gauls fighting Germans, and so on and so on. In fact, I highly doubt his first three years campaign, which focused on northern Gaul, earned him much at all, hence he probably thought "lets plunder Britainnia for money!!!" and thous launched Britainnia campaign.

Doesn't matter. In fact Caesar accidently conquering Gaul is more impressive than Trajan deciding Dacia wasn't worth it after he got the gold mines.

Garbage. Trajan never abandoned Dacia, nor his successor, Hadrian, did that (considered but he ultimately decided not to). It was until Aurelian that abandoned Dacia, some 150 years later.

[Romano-Dacis]

My vote goes to Trajan for the whole "underrated" aspect as well. It's sad that the optimus princeps of the Roman world is reduced to a paragraph in most Roman history books.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Weren't the Roman forces Caesar fought a lot of the time recruits or fairly green troops? And then the Gauls were painfully divided and way past their prime. It seems to me like Caesar just got himself in a good position on the battlefield amongst divided and sometimes inexperienced enemies, won, and then wrote a lot about himself at length. Caesar was all "Oh what's that Senate? I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am." and then *stabby stab stab* Caesar = X_x

I don't really remember many of Caesar's contemporaries singing his praises either. It seems that he sang alone and often and it is only because his writings survived unlike Trajan that people like to idolize him.

Trajan's planned campaign was insane. I think one of the routes to the east was to go invade over the black sea and into Asia that way. Could you imagine if Trajan was younger? I think he could have reached India and perhaps some more considering how well the Roman Empire was doing at the time.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

lol haha ave imperator

[Carpathian Wolf]

Caesar didn't plan to conquer the Gauls. And Trajan's plan I do believe was to conquer all of Dacia, across the north of the black sea and into Asia.

[Ciabhán]

Caesar didn't plan to conquer the Gauls. And Trajan's plan I do believe was to conquer all of Dacia, across the north of the black sea and into Asia.

Doesn't matter. In fact Caesar accidently conquering Gaul is more impressive than Trajan deciding Dacia wasn't worth it after he got the gold mines.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Uh what historian?

[The Noble Lord]

Two most successful emperors in classical Roman history: Trajan and Hadrian!