Gaul Caesar applied Roman Essay Example for Free

Gaul Caesar applied Roman Essay When considering whether Julius Caesar was an effective leader two main areas must be taken into account; his generalship and his political positions of power within the Roman Republic. Effectiveness is the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result of success. This question depends on both his lifetime and the state in which he left Rome on his death. By approaching his entire political career, including his first consulship prior to his military career in Gaul, as well as his dictatorship and in terms of his military exploits, concentrating on the Gallic wars. Also using certain criteria of effective leaders and judge whether he stands up to them, such criteria include: decision making without compromising personal integrity, an ability to fit unforeseen circumstances within an ultimate design, persuasion and the skill to win people over, acceptance of criticism to maintain morale and the choice of competent subordinates. 1 By challenging Caesars personality, as seen through writings on his life, it will discern qualities which stand him as an effective leader and those that do not. It is important to keep in mind that he was a man who was overshadowed by his past and that of his relatives; a weak man suffering from epilepsy and a frail body and coming from a damaged noble family, a relative of Marius who had insulted the Senate greatly. It is certainly a great achievement of a man to be considered among the greatest of Roman generals and be dictator from such origins. There are furthermore a number of questions to approach when tackling this subject. First and foremost whether Caesars decisions, by analysis of the consequences, make him worthy of being viewed as an effective leader? In addition whether Caesar learnt from the past, most importantly the recent past, must be examined, and also a number of comparisons between himself and his contemporaries such as Pompey Magnus and Lucius Sulla. Was Caesars final victory of his own strategy and skills, or the failings of his opposition? Does assassination automatically mean failure as a leader? Was Caesar was justified in his actions? Especially military and how his wartime experience affected his later political career. First off approaching his military profession and subsequently then his political exploits; this allows creation of a clear comparison between his pre-war consulship and his dictatorship having explored his generalship. With all the evidence available of Caesar many interpretation are possible, as a tyrant or a benign dictator. Does some of this interpretation by historians that he was a tyrant lead him to be viewed as an ineffective leader? There is a clear two-sided argument to this debate, and Caesar is noteworthy but not exceptional. Caesars military service was exceptional and he had a great number of successes with minimal failures. As governor of Cisalpine Gaul and Gallia Narbonensis he adopted a strategy of forward defence, falling very much in line with the traditional Republican sentiment that a pre-emptive strike to an enemy that may one day attack was the best policy to adopt. 2 He utilised the aggression of the Helvetii tribes incursion into lands allied to the Romans to create open warfare with Gaul. This was an act of clear effective leadership by Caesar. By doing so he had seized the initiative not only to demonstrate his military prowess, but to make a strong political statement back in Rome. Many historians do not give this act much credence in it itself, but it was a singular one of brilliance. He did not wait for an opportunity to occur, he made the opportunity himself. Caesars enigma is that he was such an effective military man who also understood and took into account the political repercussions of his actions understanding their significance. In this episode Caesar openly displays a number of his more exceptional qualities as a general. Although a man blighted by physical weakness he stood and fought alongside his men facing the same hardships as they did; The iron bodied general who was capable of inspiring whole legions with his courage, who shared every vigour and hardship that he imposed upon his men. 3 This engagement alongside his soldiers the act of a truly different and exceptional leader in Caesars case. But can one man change the outcome of a battle? His own recordings in The Conquest of Gaul would argue so, but this is just evidence of his use of propaganda to further his political career. The political ramifications are kept in the background from any recordings and analysis of his life. The effects would have brought Rome into a period of safety and enhanced commercial growth; this must definitely be taken into account as one of Caesars main aims. He wanted to involve the people of Rome in the expansion he was accomplishing. Caesar very shrewdly evoked the fear that had plagued the Roman people and the Senate of the Gauls. Previously the Visigoths had sacked Rome and its memory had lingered. Through this he legitimised his war. He exhibited many attributes of an effective military leader. His victories made him a hero of the people, and increased his political power in Rome making it difficult for the Senate to stand against him. Through his military achievements he succeeded in his aims to prove himself and to make a political point to the Senate. Caesars conquest of Gaul was swift and decisive. In one instance he adapted his military genius into naval warfare. A new tactic saw the use of hooks to immobilise the Venetis (a northern Gallic tribe) vessels so that the Romans could more easily destroy them. 4 This is just one event among many where he proved his proficiency as a fighting man. The peace ensuing from his subjugation of Gaul had a number of effects; it enabled greater commerce between Rome and Gaul, and served to allay any fears of invasion. Ultimately leading to a more stable and powerful Rome. He succeeded in achieving his two main aims as a general, to prepare for his political career, and to engage the Roman people in his vision for a new empire. On the defeat of a German intrusion into Gaul Caesar applied Roman ingenuity and built a bridge across the Rhine which he immediately destroyed. This singular seemingly unimportant act was a major part of Caesars strategy. It is clear from Plutarch that Caesar when he could, would avoid military action, he did not always desire war. Philip Freeman agrees with Plutarch on this point, and there is much corroboration between historians on this. He aimed to achieve peace through negotiation rather than by force. Such as he did to the invading Germans until they broke dialogue with force. His action prevented a further invasion by Germanic tribes because he had emphasised his dominance, he was commander of a superior army. Alongside his strategy of forward defence, Caesar incorporated a rule of divide and conquer. By rewarding some tribes for their loyalty to Rome he extended his control over Gaul through their support, at the same time ruling other nations with an iron fist. In recognising that the tribes needed to be treated differently is a sign of his strong leadership. He was a man inclined to mercy until double crossed by those he had been merciful to, and then he became vengeful and aggressive. He rectified his mistakes immediately and did not dwell on them. This was an ability that sets him apart from other military commanders from history. The Gallic uprising of 54BC was a strong challenge to his control. It was at his siege of Alesia, the final large Gallic stronghold that exceptional examples of Caesars military prowess can be found. He entrenched his legions between two separate palisades. His victory at Alesia relied on timing. His cavalry placed behind the Gallic relief force engaged on his order at the most pivotal point of battle. This was greatest military victory of Caesars career and his most famous. He had established himself as a virtual king in Gaul. 5 He was an exceptional general, in that all historians agree. There is no debate that doubts his qualities as a military man. But Caesar did not experience an easy campaign during his time in Gaul. He did encounter failures. His invasions, first in 55BC he was forced to return having been woefully unprepared and then in 54BC due to the uprising led to disaster. This was not only a military but political failure also, he had promised Rome to have the island of Britain under control within a year. He was arrogant and had overestimated his ability. But his arrogance maintained his temperament; whatever his own doubt and weariness, his outward show of confidence remained as sovereign as ever. 6 Although in these examples Caesar had failed in his armed feats he took the criticism given by his opponents and continued resolutely, an indication of an effective leader. This opens a question on the judgement that led him to invade Britain? I would argue that it was simply because he believed that he could not fail. But this setback tempered his arrogance. In these two efforts he was not an effective leader, he had made a poor decision and was unsuccessful. But we cannot expect a general to be perfect. What sets Caesar apart from all others was his ability to rectify his mistakes. Following his initial loss against Vercingetorix he took the initiative in sieging Alesia, recouping any loss of prestige. To the Romans, no truer measure of a man could be found than his capacity to withstand grim ordeals of exhaustion and blood. By such reckoning, Caesar had proved himself the foremost man in the Republic. 7 Holland argues that due to Caesars military accomplishments only, he had established himself as the greatest man in Rome. On the other hand, Zwi Yavetz argues; he relied so much on his personal charm that he overlooked the need for tact Success lay open to a less brilliant and therefore more tolerant man [i. e. Augustus]8 Yavetz opinion that Augustus was a more brilliant man intimates that Julius was not preeminent. He takes into account his political career, and argues that his assassination was due to his personality, and therefore he was not an effective leader, he left Rome in a state of civil hostility and Augustus Caesar was a more appropriate man to succeed in Rome.