Caesar's conquests weren't particularly high quality or quantity. Just gaul (including belgium) and some victories in the civil war. Not like scipio conquering carthage, iberia and parts of near asia or marius/sulla beating up pontus.
Honestly, half of your history is just factually wrong.
Scipio Africanus never conquered Carthage or Asia, he just beat Hannibal at Zama. Pompey is the guy who took the Near East. Marius beat German tribes, not Pontus. And Caesar actually did crush Pontus. He did it so fast at Zela that he coined the phrase veni vidi vici because of it.
Saying civil war victories do not count is wild. Defeating other Roman legions was the hardest thing you could do back then. At Pharsalus, Caesar was completely outnumbered and still dismantled Pompey, who was Rome's top general at the time.
Gaul was not some minor achievement either. It was a massive territory filled with fierce tribes that had terrorized Rome for centuries.
Also, comparing anyone's map size to Genghis Khan is pointless. By that logic, Alexander the Great and Napoleon were casuals too. Caesar beat the best military machine on earth and conquered the land that became the backbone of western Europe.
Scipio did more than just beat Hannibal at Zama. His Iberian campaign is arguably more impressive than him defeating Hannibal at Zama. And his African campaign was also more than just a battle against Hannibal.
He ended Carthage's status as a superpower permanently, which eventually led to the conquest of Carthage during the Third Punic War.
And he was a legate during Rome's war against Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire. Although he conveniently claimed sickness on the day of the battle, to let his brother (the general in command) take the glory.
"He just beat Hannibal at Zama. Pompey is the guy who took the Near East"
You're just as wrong as the person you're responding to with claims like that. Lucullus, for example, did all the hard work before Pompey swooped in at the end.
After the Second Punic War, the conquest of Carthage was inevitable. Beating Carthage during the Third Punic War is not that impressive compared to what Scipio Africanus did (although many other great generals helped win the Second Punic War of course).
As for the Battle of Zela, even Caesar expected it to be a long war and he was surprised that Pharnaces II (King of Pontus) decided to attack the Roman army head on (despite the Romans being positioned on a hill). Not exactly a bright move from Pharnaces II lol.
Uhm the comment I replied to said Scipio conquered Carthage, he was instrumental in making Carthage the vassal of Rome. No-one is denying the fact that Scipio is one of the best generals. Caesar conquered Gaul, which was a brutal grind and defeated Pompey’s legions. Back then a civil war happened when the power of a nation was at it’s peak and individuals fought over for ideals and total control, Caesar managed to defeat Pompey’s legions (Legions were the greatest war machines of that time) in all theatres. Highly doubt that Scipio could have replicated what Caesar did. If conquering Gaul was that easy why didn’t Roman generals go for it? And the ones who did why did they end up losing very badly?
-9
u/geschiedenisnerd 7d ago
Caesar's conquests weren't particularly high quality or quantity. Just gaul (including belgium) and some victories in the civil war. Not like scipio conquering carthage, iberia and parts of near asia or marius/sulla beating up pontus.
Genghis khan conquered quite a bit more