WI: Lucullus vs Caesar

WI: Lucullus vs Caesar

  • Lucullus

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • Caesar

    Votes: 30 93.8%

  • Total voters
    32
What if Lucullus vs Caesar?

Here's the scenario, Lucullus isn't superseded by Pompey, doesn't lose his political power and lives longer. Lucullus instead of Pompey is then faced with a rising Caesar. If a civil war occurred between the two who would have won? Would Lucullus have preformed better then Pompey against Caesar?
 
Caesar will certainly win most of all because he has the best army and because he had built so strong a personal attachment of his soldiers to himself that they followed him to the end and kept faith with him even after the defeat of Dyrrachium against Pompey.

Lucullus was not good for personal relations with his soldiers. And although a great tactician, he did not have Pompey's or Caesar's talents as a strategist.
 
Lucullus was 61 at his time of death in 57 or 56 BCE. By 49 BCE, he'll be 68-12 years older than Pompey. By that point I doubt he'd get the command, rather someone like Ahenobarbus or Cornelius Metellus.

In any case, butterflies, butterflies, butterflies. Caesar owes his entire career up until the Gallic Wars to Pompey and Crassus. If Pompey is effectively marginalized, Caesar's career prospects are bleak. He probably won't win the consulship, at least not so early, and he certainly won't get command of Ciscalpine Gaul, Transalpine Gaul, and Illyria. Even if Metellus Celer dies on time in 59 BCE to make Transalpine Gaul available, it's certainly not going to Caesar.
 
Lucullus was 61 at his time of death in 57 or 56 BCE. By 49 BCE, he'll be 68-12 years older than Pompey. By that point I doubt he'd get the command, rather someone like Ahenobarbus or Cornelius Metellus.

In any case, butterflies, butterflies, butterflies. Caesar owes his entire career up until the Gallic Wars to Pompey and Crassus. If Pompey is effectively marginalized, Caesar's career prospects are bleak. He probably won't win the consulship, at least not so early, and he certainly won't get command of Ciscalpine Gaul, Transalpine Gaul, and Illyria. Even if Metellus Celer dies on time in 59 BCE to make Transalpine Gaul available, it's certainly not going to Caesar.

So it would effectively butterfly everything, interesting. Out of curiosity if Caesar did ever fight Lucullus on equal terms who would you bet on?
 
What if Lucullus vs Caesar?

Here's the scenario, Lucullus isn't superseded by Pompey, doesn't lose his political power and lives longer. Lucullus instead of Pompey is then faced with a rising Caesar. If a civil war occurred between the two who would have won? Would Lucullus have preformed better then Pompey against Caesar?

Wasn´t Lucullus already past his prime ?
 
Wasn´t Lucullus already past his prime ?

Yes he would be older then Pompey. If they were both in prime it would be more interesting. I do think Lucullus is a better battlefield commander then Pompey, in a Pharsalus like scenario he could have won. Lucullus almost always fought outnumbered and still emerged victorious, if he has the advantage in numbers Caesar might be toast.
 
I'm voting for Caesar. Lucullus was a very good general, but even ignoring how old he'd be in 49, he didn't have the ability to inspire his troops' love that Caesar did.

That said, the Senatorial faction in the Civil War had, on paper, much greater long-term resources than the Caesareans. Even if Lucullus wasn't quite up to Caesar's standards, it's not implausible that he might be able to win anyway.
 
Lucullus never fought against roman soldiers. This was the real and ultimate standard by which you could measure a general's quality. And on this standard, Caesar showed he was better than any other in his century. He could make mistakes and suffered setbacks and even suffered defeats but still overcome his defeats.

Sulla achieved comparable results but Sulla was not on his own and had very good generals who performed decisive actions that saved Sulla's head in key moments of the battle (Murena and Crassus).

This, plus his clemency, plus his literary talent and personal charm, explains why he has remained as the most famous and amdmired of all romans, even 2000 years later.

If you go to Rome's republican forum, you can see the place where Caesar's corpse was cremated. There are always flowers put here by tourists or city dwellers. That's just for him and no other ancient roman.
 
Lucullus never fought against roman soldiers. This was the real and ultimate standard by which you could measure a general's quality. And on this standard, Caesar showed he was better than any other in his century. He could make mistakes and suffered setbacks and even suffered defeats but still overcome his defeats.

Sulla achieved comparable results but Sulla was not on his own and had very good generals who performed decisive actions that saved Sulla's head in key moments of the battle (Murena and Crassus).

This, plus his clemency, plus his literary talent and personal charm, explains why he has remained as the most famous and amdmired of all romans, even 2000 years later.

If you go to Rome's republican forum, you can see the place where Caesar's corpse was cremated. There are always flowers put here by tourists or city dwellers. That's just for him and no other ancient roman.

Lucullus supported Sulla´s march on Rome. He had been a Sulla supporter.
 
Lucullus never fought against roman soldiers. This was the real and ultimate standard by which you could measure a general's quality. And on this standard, Caesar showed he was better than any other in his century. He could make mistakes and suffered setbacks and even suffered defeats but still overcome his defeats.

Sulla achieved comparable results but Sulla was not on his own and had very good generals who performed decisive actions that saved Sulla's head in key moments of the battle (Murena and Crassus).

This, plus his clemency, plus his literary talent and personal charm, explains why he has remained as the most famous and amdmired of all romans, even 2000 years later.

If you go to Rome's republican forum, you can see the place where Caesar's corpse was cremated. There are always flowers put here by tourists or city dwellers. That's just for him and no other ancient roman.

Per the OP Caesar wouldn't have fought Roman soldiers either prior to the war. So Caesar would be as inexperienced against other Romans as Lucullus. I guess it would be more comparable to measure Caesar Gallic Campaigns vs Lucullus Eastern Campaign.

I myself view Caesar as a tad overrated. He was a competent general but occasionally he could be overconfident. At Ruspina he marched against a superior foe and nearly got himself and his army destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ruspina

On a separate note I more admire Lucullus contributions to learning then Caesar's legacy of authoritarianism.
 
Last edited:
I myself view Caesar as a tad overrated. He was a competent general but occasionally he could be overconfident. At Ruspina he marched against a superior foe and nearly got himself and his army destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ruspina
He was far more than competent. He was a genius, no ands, ifs or buts about it. I don't see how anyone who studies him and his campaigns could rank him any lower. His biggest weakness was that he could throw caution to wind and take unnecessary risks(First invasion of Britain or the invasion Africa where ruspina took place are good examples), yet it was in these that his genius truly shown. He had a remarkable ability to improvise and overcome stark odds(even if these odds could have been avoided). For instance, examine how he extricated his men from Ruspina.

As for his "legacy of authoritarianism," His government was a world better than the oligarchy the optimates. Hell, we even have people like cicero complaining that it was proving rather hard to oppose the "tyrant" when his policies and projects are so good. He was no Sulla. There were no mass proscriptions or forced confiscations. And his measures(whether it be ordering the pontine marshes drained or founding colonies and buying farms for the landless romans and veterans, or ordering the calendar reformed et cetera) were good, and were considered to be so by almost all in his day.

As for the question, I think Caesar would defeat Lucullus. The latter would be outmatched by the bond of loyalty Caesar built with his men, even if one could show that he matched Caesar as a strategist and tactician(though I am skeptical of this). A more interesting match would be Caesar vs. Sertorius.
 
Last edited:
I rather agree with you except on confiscations. Caesar did confiscate the properties of some of his enemies, although he also handed back a part to the enemies to whom he had forgiven. He badly needed money to financed the civil wars.

One other reason why Pompey was much harder to defeat than Lucullus would have been is that Pompey had an unequalled worldwide network of clients. Lucullus did not have such a network.

Precision : Lucullus just participated in Sulla's first march on Rome in 88, against civilians. He did not in late 82.

Other precision : Lucullus was not very good at Strategy. He was unable to finish off Mithridates. That's a point Cicero hid because he was a friend of Lucullus. But the senators who discharged Lucullus and replaced him by other commanders in chief (Marcius Rex before Pompey) knew what It was about.
 
He was far more than competent. He was a genius, no ands, ifs or buts about it. I don't see how anyone who studies him and his campaigns could rank him any lower. His biggest weakness was that he could throw caution to wind and take unnecessary risks(First invasion of Britain or the invasion Africa where ruspina took place are good examples), yet it was in these that his genius truly shown. He had a remarkable ability to improvise and overcome stark odds(even if these odds could have been avoided). For instance, examine how he extricated his men from Ruspina.

As for his "legacy of authoritarianism," His government was a world better than the oligarchy the optimates. Hell, we even have people like cicero complaining that it was proving rather hard to oppose the "tyrant" when his policies and projects are so good. He was no Sulla. There were no mass proscriptions or forced confiscations. And his measures(whether it be ordering the pontine marshes drained or founding colonies and buying farms for the landless romans and veterans, or ordering the calendar reformed et cetera) were good, and were considered to be so by almost all in his day.

As for the question, I think Caesar would defeat Lucullus. The latter would be outmatched by the bond of loyalty Caesar built with his men, even if one could show that he matched Caesar as a strategist and tactician(though I am skeptical of this). A more interesting match would be Caesar vs. Sertorius.

Ruspina could easily have been a Carrhae. Caesar just like Crassus was unable to effectively deal with irregular troops, in this case javelin wielding Numidians. He only escaped partly because his enemies commander has disoriented by being knocked off his horse, he also took triple the casualties of his opponents.

I don't know how we can make Caesar out to be a good person. His campaigns were basically genocide and he established a dictatorship. I'd take a corrupt Republic any day.

I'll put up Caesar vs Sertorius for fun. :)
 
One other reason why Pompey was much harder to defeat than Lucullus would have been is that Pompey had an unequalled worldwide network of clients. Lucullus did not have such a network.

Precision : Lucullus just participated in Sulla's first march on Rome in 88, against civilians. He did not in late 82.

Other precision : Lucullus was not very good at Strategy. He was unable to finish off Mithridates. That's a point Cicero hid because he was a friend of Lucullus. But the senators who discharged Lucullus and replaced him by other commanders in chief (Marcius Rex before Pompey) knew what It was about.

Wouldn't all of Pompey's client be Lucullus'? In the event Pompey vanishes I imagine all of these people would flock to Lucullus. Sulla's family would still be under Lucullus care giving him that support.

I think Lucullus would have finished off Mithridates if given the time Pompey had. I don't understand how Mithradates refusing to surrender makes Lucullus a bad strategist. If Mithradates son hadn't of betrayed him the war would have dragged on even longer, that wouldn't have made Pompey a bad strategist.

We can't expect everyone to be like Vercingetorix and surrender in dramatic fashion. If Vercingetorix ran off into the woods and started a multi year guerrilla campaign, I wouldn't hold that against Caesar.

I'm enjoying the discussion.:D
 
Ruspina could easily have been a Carrhae. Caesar just like Crassus was unable to effectively deal with irregular troops, in this case javelin wielding Numidians. He only escaped partly because his enemies commander has disoriented by being knocked off his horse, he also took triple the casualties of his opponents.

I don't know how we can make Caesar out to be a good person. His campaigns were basically genocide and he established a dictatorship. I'd take a corrupt Republic any day.
Except ruspina wasn't a carrhae, and it was due to Caesars actions that he was able to get his men out of it. Btw, one battle does negate his success on all of his other campaigns. You're going have try a bit harder if you want call him overrated.

As for a corrupt republic, this is how I see it. The late republic was a corrupt shit show controlled by self serving patrician families who would take massive loans to bribe their way into office, complete their term, then go out and govern a province to loot and pillage even more money in order to bribe their way out of prosecution for their crimes when they returned to Rome. Meanwhile the vast majority of them had little interest in reforming any of this or the multitude of other issues plaguing the republic. Those that did take an interest in reform(wether motivated by genuine concern, lust for power and prestige, or a mixture of both) Were opposed and often killed by the rest of the patrician families. This was the status quo, and it was not tenable. Compare that to a regime which was actually effective at reform and far more concerned in the interestes of classes besides the patricians, and I think it's an easy choice. Calling the former a republic does little to change my mind on that.

Caesars campaigns in Gaul were not exceptionally brutal compared to other Roman campaigns even if they were exceptional in terms of scale(though Pompey's Eastern conquests were similar in scale). In fact, though Caesar was capable of brutality when he felt it was needed(the story of having all the hands of warriors in one tribe cut off after they broke a peace treaty and went to war with him again comes to mind)I think his rather lenient treatment of guals after the defeat of vercagetorix and his behavior compared to the optimates in the civil war( who were far more brutal as a policy), and his insistence on forgiving enemies(compare this to Sulla) lends credence to the idea that he was not some sadist who enjoyed inflicting pain on others, and was in fact inclined to forgive.

I'm almost done ranting, I just suggest you keep in mind that Caesar didn't even plan on becoming dictator for life either. He wanted to be able to run as consul and then gain another province in order to keep imperium and avoid being destroyed by his enemies in court(which he was legally allowed to do).He was pushed into a corner by Pompey and the optimates, which amounted to unconditional surrender, and chose to march after several attempts at coming to a compromise failed.
 
Last edited:
Except ruspina wasn't a carrhae, and it was due to Caesars actions that he was able to get his men out of it. Btw, one battle does negate his success on all of his other campaigns.

If Crassus had of withdrawn from Carrhae back to Syria, like the agreement with the Parthians would have allowed, the result would have been similar to Ruspina.

You're going have try a bit harder if you want call him overrated.

Since neither commander has experience fighting Romans prior to the CW, I think it would be beneficial to compare the non Roman opponents the two commanders fought.

Lucullus fought Mithridates IV and Tigranes, arguably two of the greatest enemies Rome ever faced. Despite this he never managed to lose a battle in the field and defeated them repeatedly. Tigranocerta can be called a perfect battle, Lucullus fought brilliantly against a far superior foe.

With the exception of Vercingetorix, most of Caesar's opponents were sub par. If Caesar was at Tigranocerta I think the Romans would have been beat. He would have approached the battle conventionally and been defeated like Crassus, It would have been similar to the scenario Caesar ran into at Gergovia. I also don't view the Gaul and German armies facing Caesar as particularly skilled, Marius showed that they are relatively easy to defeat if you stand firm.

As for a corrupt republic, this is how I see it. The late republic was a corrupt shit show controlled by self serving patrician families who would take massive loans to bribe their way into office, complete their term, then go out and govern a province to loot and pillage even more money in order to bribe their way out of prosecution for their crimes when they returned to Rome. Meanwhile the vast majority of them had little interest in reforming any of this or the multitude of other issues plaguing the city. Those that did take an interest in reform(wether motivated by genuine concern, lust for power and prestige, or a mixture of both) Were opposed and often killed by the rest of the patrician families. This was the status quo, and it was not tenable. Compare that to a regime which was actually effective at reform and far more concerned in the interestes of classes besides the patricians, and I think it's an easy choice. Calling the former a republic does little to change my mind on that.

Caesars campaigns in Gaul were not exceptionally brutal compared to other Roman campaigns even if they were exceptional in terms of scale(though Pompey's Eastern conquests were similar in scale). In fact, though Caesar was capable of brutality when he felt it was needed(the story of having all the hands of warriors in one tribe cut off after they broke a peace treaty and went to war with him again comes to mind)I think his rather lenient treatment of guals after the defeat of vercagetorix and his behavior compared to the optimates in the civil war( who were far more brutal as a policy), and his insistence on forgiving enemies(compare this to Sulla) lends credence to the idea that he was not some sadist who enjoyed inflicting pain on others, and was in fact inclined to forgive.

I'm almost done ranting, I just suggest you keep in mind that Caesar didn't even plan on becoming dictator for life either. He wanted to be able to run as consul and then gain another province in order to keep imperium and avoid being destroyed by his enemies in court(which he was legally allowed to do).He was pushed into a corner by Pompey and the optimates, which amounted to unconditional surrender, and chose to march after several attempts at coming to a compromise failed.

I enjoyed the rant its good.:) We can however keep Caesar political career and the state of the republic for a discussion another day.
 
Last edited:
Top