Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-10870829-20130717030243/@comment-10906938-20130718233121

S Ryan wrote: Caesar didn't add any territory to Rome?? What about all of gaul? In the 8 years he campaigned there he killed a million soldiers and took another million as slaves. He would have conquered Britain but had to return to Gual to take on Vergingetorix (who he crushed). He also defeated the German hordes that were migrating across the Rhine. He defeated Pompey in a civil war in which he was greatly outnumbered and he defeated armies much larger than his in Egypt and Pontus not to mention his early career in Spain where he earned the title of imperator. If Caesar hadn't been assasinated (an act which was done by a minority of senators and was incredibly unpopular with the people) he would have gone to conquer the middle east entirely as he had planned.

It is true that Caesar was no Alexander but he was without a doubt the best of the Roman generals and even Hannibal. He was without a doubt the second greatest general of the ancient world and was also without a doubt the greatest politician. I would pay so much to see the reactions of the Senate when they were informed of his crossing the Rubicon. It is sad how politics can interfere with a nation's wellbeing. If those trecharous, cowardly fools hadn't assassinated him, the Roman Empire's forces weren't split into the camps of Antony, Augustus, and the other weaklings, Rome could have expanded further. If Varus had fallen off a horse and broke hiss neck as a child, Rome would have gone beyond the Rhine. (That representation is from Rome: Total War)