I finished Caesar's Legion. The Tenth Legion, of the title, was the premiere military unit of Rome from about 50 B.C. to about 130 A.D. I learned a lot about the Legions. I also learned about the Roman Civil War (the first one, anyway). I learned about Gaius Julius Caesar.
Like most Americans of my generation, most of what I know about Caesar is from Shakespeare's play. (Who am I kidding? Most of what Americans of my vintage know about Caesar probably comes from The Simpsons.) Turns out he was a good military leader, although not the genius strategist I'd thought. Mostly, he was amazingly charismatic, a remarkably good engineer (even by Roman standards), and famously, even in his own lifetime, lucky. Whenever he made a mistake, it was recoverable. Or his opponent made a worse one, or failed to capitalize on Caesar's error.
There were Romans before Caesar who dominated Rome and gave but briefest lip-service to the Republic (Marius, for one). But he actually attacked & conquered Rome. Not the City, itself; although his troops did riot there at one point (in his absence). Nonetheless, he launched the civil war, and methodically destroyed the Senate-appointed defenders of the Republic. I suspect it is mostly coincidence that his battles were outside the Italian peninsula. His opponents' power bases, like his own, were in the Provinces. He had to follow and beat them on their own turf.
Marc Antony was, based on this book, anyway, an incompetent thug. His military commands frequently mutinied. His attempts at conquest, in the wake of Caesar's death, were poorly timed, unsubtle, and badly executed. During life Caesar avoided leaving Antony in command (even when Caesar left and Antony was second-in-command). After one of Antony's more-egregious failures, Caesar left him behind. By contrast Caesar regarded Brutus (as in "et tu, Brutae?") as his adopted son. Brutus supported Pompey (and thus, the Senate) against Caesar. Nonetheless, when Brutus was part of the opposition force in one of Caesar's battles against Pompey, Caesar issued special orders that Brutus was to be unharmed and allowed to escape in the aftermath of victory.
Like most Americans of my generation, most of what I know about Caesar is from Shakespeare's play. (Who am I kidding? Most of what Americans of my vintage know about Caesar probably comes from The Simpsons.) Turns out he was a good military leader, although not the genius strategist I'd thought. Mostly, he was amazingly charismatic, a remarkably good engineer (even by Roman standards), and famously, even in his own lifetime, lucky. Whenever he made a mistake, it was recoverable. Or his opponent made a worse one, or failed to capitalize on Caesar's error.
There were Romans before Caesar who dominated Rome and gave but briefest lip-service to the Republic (Marius, for one). But he actually attacked & conquered Rome. Not the City, itself; although his troops did riot there at one point (in his absence). Nonetheless, he launched the civil war, and methodically destroyed the Senate-appointed defenders of the Republic. I suspect it is mostly coincidence that his battles were outside the Italian peninsula. His opponents' power bases, like his own, were in the Provinces. He had to follow and beat them on their own turf.
Marc Antony was, based on this book, anyway, an incompetent thug. His military commands frequently mutinied. His attempts at conquest, in the wake of Caesar's death, were poorly timed, unsubtle, and badly executed. During life Caesar avoided leaving Antony in command (even when Caesar left and Antony was second-in-command). After one of Antony's more-egregious failures, Caesar left him behind. By contrast Caesar regarded Brutus (as in "et tu, Brutae?") as his adopted son. Brutus supported Pompey (and thus, the Senate) against Caesar. Nonetheless, when Brutus was part of the opposition force in one of Caesar's battles against Pompey, Caesar issued special orders that Brutus was to be unharmed and allowed to escape in the aftermath of victory.
