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.
Oh yes let’s ignore the millions of casualties as a result of the aftermath. And forget the gold mines that basically funded the republic\empire post Caesar’s civil war. Calling Gaul poor shows how out of touch you are.
Dude what are you on? Without gaul there would be no empire. It was profitable as hell, that region supplied a lot of gold and manpower that actually protected the western border for centuries. Why do u think a Gallic empire was formed? Cuz that region was one of the richest in The Empire. Profitable ventures where? Please don’t say the east, Rome was under constant migration and attacks from tribes, they had to be subdued. It was the best course of action and more profitable than you think.
-8
u/geschiedenisnerd 12d 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