Excuse me, but yes,I did know it was a very close thing, and the Romans nearly lost it. FYI too,it's one of my favourite,ancient military battles. As to your comment on being the Gaul leader well,that's your opinion.

@@DJ-jn3on I agree with you. More recent wars have proven how hit and run, guerrilla tactics can often defeat larger, better armed and trained invaders.

To be fair his plan was pretty good

Vercingétorix's plan was however simple, the Gaulish relief army was to lay a siege and wait for the Romans to die of hunger but they did not listen to the orders and instead of laying a siege, they launched several assaults and we know the rest

Napoleon fought more battles than Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander combined.

@@buninparadise9476 not with 2000 y.o technology he didnt

@@buninparadise9476 These "paragons" are meaningless - different times, weapons, tactics, strategies, situations and (most important of all) - different SOURCES and NUMBER of SOURCES. It's like trying to ask: "Which colour is DARKER? - BLUE or RED?" - for instance - we have hundreds of sources for the "War Of The Third Coalition" - 1805 and the Battles of Ulm, Trafalgar and then Austerlitz. How many sources do we have for the WHOLE of the Gallic Campaigns, apart from Ceasar's own "De Bello Gallico"? Another example - Ceasar in Gaul was practically "alone at the top" while Napoleon had a very sophisticated chain of command with excellent Generals (many of whom would later on become "Marshalls") - men like Davout, Massena, Lannes, Berthier, Augerau, Desaix, Ney, Murat - many of them fighting with their own, independent "army cores" - completely cut off from Napoleon they would win many "parallel battles" on their own or at the very least hold their own ground, until "l'Empereur" arrived with his reinforcements and "Guard" units to "close the deal"? - for example in 1806 at Jena, people tend to forget that it was in fact Davout at Auerstedt to hold his ground heavily outnumbered against the main body of the Prussian Army for the whole day and then won a parallel battle by himself, throwing them into a complete disarray - yet! - how many remember today the name of Davout compared to the name Bonaparte? How many people today remember that if it wasn't for DESAIX Napoleon would have been crushed at Marengo and his "adventure" - with all probabilities - cut short right there&then? How can you simply "compare" Caesar to Napoleon? - two guys divided by 18 centuries?? Come on. It doesn't hold water - makes no sense. :)

@@2serveand2protect caeser was not alone at the top he had mark antony lebeanus as legatii publius crassus the son of marcus crassus and technically had pompey for senatorial support untill alessia atleast he lost labienus when he rebelled but no where near alone

@@garymillar169 Oh, I am sure you are 100% right! :) He (Caesar) had many "pro's&con's" - things that worked for him and things that didn't! - people that were essential to his victories - that are probably never even mentioned in (HIS - CEASAR's!) "De Bello Gallico" - same as people that had to be "taken by the hand" by Caesar himself. I am also sure that the very backbone of the Roman "Legio" were not their generals - offsprings of aristocratic families seeking glory for political affirmation and personal goals - but rather the medium and even lower rank officers - the "PROFESSIONALS" - the ones who did war as a life-choice (with all the consequences that carries). Caesar was given a mighty instrument into his hands - an "instrument" that was organized and held together by an "esprit de corps" as the world had never seen until that point and rarely seen after. ...but that was not my point ! :) My whole point is that comparing two people - two "Gods Of War" - divided by 18 centuries - and trying to assess "which one was greater?" is just ...POINTLESS! :D ...that's all. It's a lil' bit like asking ...idk! ... "Which river is more BEAUTIFUL? - the Colorado or the Volga?" :) It's just answering questions that do not make sense (although obviously everyone loves to speculate - myself included). Anyway! Have a good night, because I'm not gonna continue this conversation, so sweet dreams! :)

Vercingétorix wanted to burn the city but the inhabitants did not want to leave the city and promised Vercingétorix that the city would never be taken by Caesar but unfortunately we know the rest

@R. L. Foster It wasn't the Gauls that were the problem, it was if a different report were to arrive in Rome from a sub-commander or camp follower that would make Caeser look like a lier that would be the problem.

@@brianmacadam4793 Very well put. :) ...but then again ... First of all - Caesar's oratory talents were difficult to overcome, so he was a formidable opponent not just on the battlefield, but even more so, on the public "forum". He practically invented "war journalism" by himself (...and FOR himself! lol! :D...) - and made sure his "dispatches" were the first word to arrive from the frontline to Rome, way before the Senate could (...how to say?) "come up" with anything else, they were read first to the Roman plebs on the streets of Rome! :D :D ... - but most of all - - WHO would dare to say "You're a liar!" to Caesar's face (meaning: publicly) - to deny him his "GLORIAE"?? - given the fact, he had his soldiers behind him, that shared those glories? To deny "Glory" to Caesar meant calling THEM "liars" aswell, and that wasn't much of a smart idea by the time! Most of the Romans (in the City and provinces aswell) would identify themselves with those very same soldiers, rather than the Senate, and at the same time most of his soldiers identified "Rome" with Caesar ... and you wouldn't want to spit in their faces! :D PS. May I ask You one question, please? (I'm assuming you're "Anglo-Saxon" - British or American whatever!) ... ...that word that you used - the noun "DIGNITAS" you used here - how do YOU translate and - especially - interpret that word?

I would think that the report were made by Caesar himself and not the sub-commander and as said before, he had a real talent for writing. But more than that, if you were fighting for Caesar, you would be sharing the financial benefits from his victories, you would be sharing his glory...so why would you go against Caesar to make him less than he pretend to be? I don't doubt that what he wrote was mostly true but it is in his advantage to make it sounds even better. Hopefully for historian he is not like Trump saying all the time that he is the best man earth has ever seen 😂

@@onemansview Republican Rome was a political snakepit; alliances came and went. labeinus was an important ally during the Gualish campaign yet fought with Pompey (another former ally) in Greece at Philippi (was it Phillipi or Pharsalus)

That is such a weak argument. Most legionnaires could neither read nor write and certainly did not keep track of their boss's writings nor of the "big picture" they were actors in. Contradicting your lieutenant in todays US Army is not something tolerated generally. So you think foot soldiers serving Caesar had the option? Please....

Doctor Enigma: no, he was a selfish liar who led to many unnecessary deaths.

@E mills : if all 'change' is good, congrats.

@@trents3515 it is true that he wasn't fighting with honour and if it wasn't for his victories he should have been killed by his own people for not respecting the code of honour of that time. They did it to other roman before and they considered it with him but he was too popular to actually do it.

@@onemansview Honor is a fools prize it’s of no use to the dead

@@trents3515 One the Roman Republic was failing long before he came along. Also conquering Gaul so thoroughly kept Gaul part off the Roman Empire for hundreds of years.

"Corn" has traditionally been used to refer to any grain.

There was but you could only find it in upper end supermarkets....

Did not they find cocaine in some Pharaoh's mummy? Perhaps Daddy as well?

ps....i dont use google.....rather hear it out of a mouth

Since all the events are reported from Caesar himself, you have to admit that it is hard to take everything as granted. It is in his advantage to make the enemy look stronger, to make situations impossible to win finally won... Don't forget that ALL he wrote was serving the purpose of his political ambition in Roma. Because before the Gaul campaign he was ruined and needed money and reputation badly.

@@onemansview prove him wrong. You can't, so how do you know it's bragging. BTW, it ain't bragging if you can do it, and he did. There's no disputing that.

@@mikeevans96 So your reasoning is "if you can do it you are not bragging", sorry but if you make your enemy look stronger than he is to make your victory even more important that is bragging. If I say that I can beat everyone at a reading contest but I don't say that all my opponents are blind, am I bragging or not? I know that it is a stupid example but you get the idea.

@@onemansview see,here's the thing. You can't prove he did that. So, all you have is sour grapes.

@@mikeevans96 why would I be sour? He is dead since 2000 years, I have no personal grief against him nor love for him, I'm a 100% neutral. Now I never said that he was a liar for sure, just that you should consider that he wrote about himself therefore we can't trust it 100%. Why do you think the way you think? Are you somehow nostalgic of Ceasars Era?

That's not true.

I'm not a nationalist by any means and I'm quite a pacifist but if France was only a bunch of loser I doubt that they would have been such a powerful country. Just want you to remember that you learn more from your defeat than your victories and it is not because you have lost that you shouldn't remember the people that were there. And since you seem to be American I want you to remember than without France you would still be under English power ;-)

So right!! But please remember me what war US won?! lol! Idiot...

It's not French history......It's Celtic history

@@dadisdad8549 To be fair, Napoleon was basically Italian.

Britain is an island and still they surrendered to Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Dutch and for dessert the fascists of the British upper class were trounced by future Americans, Irish, Indians, and eventually had to succumb to all the people they oppressed ...many more than the French ever did. Treated their own working class and poor not much better (Why Mahatma Gandhi was great with great acclaim by factory workers in England). Who else would create a religion to enable a divorce? Very spiritual leaders ha ha.

Caesar vs Lurking Gatorade

right !!! and whoever did the translation got very well paid and nobody to do a verification to check the accuracy