Does his accomplishments not count because he teamed up with two other superstars?

How the fuck can a literal baldlet have been so charismatic?

History likes to prop him up but how does he really compare among the all time great conquerors? Was capturing Gaul that impressive considering the differences in organisation? Did he get lucky against Pompey? How badly would Parthia had fucked him?

Pompey was considered the greatest general of his time, a Roman Alexander, and he got raped by Caesar. Caesar conquering Gaul was pretty impressive, and he campaigned into Germania and Britain too. But what puts him above the likes of Alexander is that he was actually a politician and statesman with his own vision for his land rather than just a glorified warlord. He rose from comparatively humble origins to become one of the most recognisable figures in history.

I think he would have taken Crassus' fuckup into account and done fairly well, raiding Mesopotamia and such. The Romans of the 1st and 2nd centuries generally performed well against the Parthians. If Trajan could do it there's little reason Caesar couldn't. There's no way he'd start annexing vast amounts of territory and hope to hold them for long though. The best he could do would be a successful campaign or two, carry off a shitton of gold and slaves and call it a day.

>Was capturing Gaul that impressive considering the differences in organisation?
Yes it fucking was. Do remember that the gauls were considered excellent warriors, who could easily compete with hellenic armies.
The fact that they weren't politically unified is more than balanced by the fact that Caesar was literally just a piddly provincial governor with 60k men, not a consul wielding the whole might of Rome. He faced ridiculous odds.
>Did he get lucky against Pompey?
Pharsalus was a mistake by Pompey. You can count that as lucky for Caesar I suppose.
Pompey however wasn't nearly as good a general as commonly thought. He was basically a zerg rusher who only engaged when holding the numerical advantage who got routinely rekt by equally sized opponents. He also stole achievements from half the fucking senate.
>How badly would Parthia had fucked him?
Would not have fucked him at all most likely. Rome never really had trouble marching deep into western Asia destroying every persianate army they met. The issue was always retaining the area, it being just so fucking far away. He'd have come, he'd have seen, and he'd have won. Then he'd have left, and the region would have reverted to persian control within 10 years.

>But what puts him above the likes of Alexander is that he was actually a politician and statesman with his own vision for his land rather than just a glorified warlord. He rose from comparatively humble origins to become one of the most recognisable figures in history.
Sounds like Alexander's father as well, probably my favourite unknown person in history

Who was the Ambrose?

>60k men
Try 18k. Legions at that point were 4,500 if I'm not mistaken and he had 4 of them

4 legions at the beginning of the war, but he raised 6 more through the 8 years of campaigning.

He killed the republic. Fuck him

Romans nearly always had at least as many allied troops with them as legionaries

That was his greatest achievement.

Dictatorships killed Rome and he made them popular. Putting himself in a position to get killed did nothing but hurt Rome

He appealed to the people.

No, The conservative senators did when they murdered him for pulling the same shit that they let Lucius Sulla get away with.

Caesar was the last real attempt at reforming the system from within.

>Let Sulla get away with
They fought back against him too. Wasn't their fault that the reforms which allowed loyalty to be built between solider and general were allowed to pass

>Killed Rome
Really The last vestige of the Empire would only be destroyed 1400 years after Caesar was killed.

Sulla was supported by the Aristocrats it was people like Marius (a reformer) that opposed him.

The Republic was Rome. Everything since is a bastard child

That is a really arbitrary distinction one might as well say that Greece has not Greek after the League of Corinth or that The Kingdom of Rome before the republic was not Roman at all.

The Republic was the embodiment of Roman ideas and values. It's like calling the Sultanate of Rum a continuation of Rome

So Germany now is something fundamentally different and not comparable to The German Empire then?

Yes, the German people in the modern day are very different to those in the German Empire

The Republic had already rotted to the core. The 50 years preceding Caesar's rule more or less was one civil war after another.

t. Brutus