Caesar Augustus experienced more widespread trouble, although not comparable to the great rebellion in 52 b.c. Julius Caesar’s conquests in Gaul would remain part of the Roman Empire for more than five centuries. His success was based as much on careful diplomacy as it was on military skill and strength. Many more-recent imperialists, such as Sir Arthur Wellesley in India, found this equally true. Rarely does any imperial power have enough troops to hold down large, well-populated countries by force alone.

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in MHQ magazine
• Subscribe online and save!
 

The Romans habitually relied on the provincials to govern themselves in all of their day-to-day affairs. Therefore, it was normal practice to win over the rich and powerful, making it in their interest to remain loyal to Rome. Eventually these aristocrats would gain access to the comforts of the civilized world, such as luxurious villas with central heating, tiled roofs, and glass in the windows. More immediately, those men retained their local dominance. In time their descendants might gain citizenship and enjoy a distinguished career in Roman service. A century after Caesar, Rome admitted a large number of Gauls to the Senate.

It is always tempting to see parallels between the modern world, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the ancient past. Yet the circumstances are most certainly not identical. Caesar did not go into Gaul to create a stable democracy but as a conqueror, seeking advantage for himself and the republic. Nor, of course, did he have to deal with the muddled command structures inherent in coalition warfare, have the Senate or any one else at Rome in direct, real-time communication with him, or still less suffer the attentions of twenty-four-hour news stations. Caesar had sole authority and complete control over military and political planning.

The world and its attitudes have changed a great deal since the first century b.c. However, there may be one rather more encouraging lesson to be learned from Caesar’s success. At the beginning of 52 b.c., he completely misread the situation in Gaul, failing to see that even most of his allies were uniting against him. That political failure led to a military crisis. Caesar overcame this through his own talent as a commander and the bravery and skill of his army, combined—as he was always the first to admit—with a good deal of luck. It was a very close thing and could easily have ended with his defeat, and quite possibly his death.

The victory won, Caesar had the political skill to follow it up with a lasting settlement, and turned Gaul into a stable pro­vince of Rome. Few commanders throughout history have possessed the remarkable range and degree of talents combined in Julius Caesar, but it is also fair to say that many of his greatest successes came in getting himself out of tight spots of his own creation.

His example shows that it is possible for leaders to recover from apparently bleak situ­ations. It requires effort, resources, and imagination. But the first step is that those leaders—if only to themselves—admit their own errors and then devise a new solution.

British historian Adrian Goldsworthy has written numerous books on Rome. His most recent works include In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire (Orion, 2003), The Complete Roman Army (Thames & Hudson, 2003), and Caesar: Life of a Colossus (Yale University Press, 2006).

This article by Adrian Goldsworthy was originally published in the Summer 2007 issue of MHQ Magazine. For more great articles, subscribe to MHQ magazine today!

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to