Comments on: “That the race and name of that people may be annihilated”

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:51:39 +0000

Anderson says:

“Josh, I think the gist is that Caesar was politician enough to see the need for a symbolic retaliation, and general enough not to get sucked into the forests across the Rhine. Compare Varus.”

An excellent point, particularly if large areas of Gaul were only secure so long as there was a large Roman army in there (i.e., a defeat in a battle against the Germans might have triggered some Gaullic revolts, and then the once-defeated Roman army would find that they’re trapped between hostile forces, and in Varus-level trouble).

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:26:28 +0000

Josh, I think the gist is that Caesar was politician enough to see the need for a symbolic retaliation, and general enough not to get sucked into the forests across the Rhine. Compare Varus.

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:38:47 +0000

One of the things that cracked me up about the Commentary was Caesar’s discussion of his punitive raids against the Germans. If memory serves, he wrote that he felt as though he left after teaching the Germans a lesson after a mere couple of days across the Rhine; I have since wondered whether that really meant that he left because he wasn’t teaching the Germans a lesson.

By: Davis X. Machina

Davis X. Machina — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:58:16 +0000

since top figures in the Roman political elite were, effectively, involved in a never-ending “campaign.”

Chalk one up for term limits. The Roman regular magistracies were all for one year, save the censors’ 18 months.

By: Hans

Hans — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:49:29 +0000

The lesson of all this is, of course, that the US is lucky to have the Belgians on their side.

By: Quiddity

Quiddity — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:10:36 +0000

Thanks for bringing that to your readers’ attention. I knew Caesar was rough in Gaul, but wasn’t aware of that incident.