Well, 'Caesar crossing the lines' doesn't mean he is crazy. At least he is not crazy like eating spiders alive or something.According to a theory or just a myth, I have read more than once, even from serious authors, Caesar planned to crush the parthian empire, then march via the Caucasus around the Black Sea to Dacia. You know, the Dacians were on his list, too. From there he planned to attack Germania coming from the East. Sounds crazy enough for you?
It needs some explanation: his tendency to 'cross the lines':
I mean no Roman before him conquered such a great territory with such big population in the West in one sitting; no Roman built a bridge over the Rhine; no Roman ever crossed "the English Chanel" and landed on the British Isles.
No Roman before him was offered the crown in front of the public.
The things he did were outrageous, unthinkable, nearly impossible. But they were not crazy.
He might get away with them. Though this was damn risky.
That's what I mean by 'crossing the line'.
Dacia?Is becoming just a 2nd Alexander really thinking big enough for a Caesar always crossing the lines? ... There are more important wars to fight, especially Dacia, which made a lot of trouble lately. Another reason why a longer camapign in the East is not plausible.
Speaking of "crossing the lines"...
Caesar might build the bridge and cross the Danube to scare the shit out of the Dacians. Like he did by invading Germania, burning some villages and proving to everybody who is in charge, and who is afraid of who.
It perfectly worked against the Germanic Suebes, so why not try the same trick against the Dacians?
That won't take much time and can be done before going against Parthia.
Was crossing Rhine or "English Channel" reasonable? - I guess it was definitely scary, risky, spectacular, impressive; but not reasonable.Unfortunately even in this crazy scenario, Bactria and India are not reasonable.
Crossing the line(s) doesn't necessarily mean conquering Bactria or India.
But crossing the Indus River? Why not?