The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-11-06
! v,

view point Of student OF the art OF war. Col.
Dodge brings out several interesting facts.
In tho first place. Caesar acted constantly on
the offensive. Except Us the result OF an over
Eager movement he was mover put on the de-
fensive. In the second place. his troops.
although numerically weaker than their orpo-
nents. were Of q higher grade in discipline
and morale. He did not take with him large
bodies OF auxiliaries. feeling that his legion
aries were stronger without them. Under the
stress OF temporary reverse Caesar was strong
and elastic He neye: lost heart. and never
allowed defeat to become disaster. After
Dyrrachlun he marched away more like
victor than O badly beaten man. This ability
to cope with adversely Is. more than any other.
. mark OF his genius. 1t Is another sig
nifcant fact that CRsar's officers were capa-
Bile OF much better things under his command
than under any other conditions. Thus Caesars
Lieutenant Titus Labienus had distinguished
himself in Gaul. but he made but poor cap
tain in Spain when serving against Cnsar.
This was owing not only to Cnsars imposing
personality. but to the fact that he was able
and ready at all times to do thrice as much
work as any one else could do. No one in the
army labored 10 hard as Cmsar. His whole
career. in truth. demonstrates how potent a
factor in war is personal character Cipsar's
military art was not a thing he had learned
from others or could impart to Others It was
the product OF mis- vast intellect. and bore the
seal OF his splendid moral force.
In another chapter OF his narrative. Col
Dodge institutes striking and fruitful
com parison of Caesar with Alexander and
Hannibal. the other two great captains
OF antiquity. He notes that Alexander
had the most beauty: wo picture him
as the Homeric youth. while we think
OF Hannibal and Caesar as in tho sober matu-
rty of years. Taking all his qualities together.
Caesar is the most splendid man OF antiquity
Viewed simply as a soldier. he equals but does
not excel the other two. His ambition. like
Aexander's. was tinctured with senshncss {:
Hannibars was purely patriotic. As "A man
Caesar was kindly: as a soldier he was ruth
less. In capacity for work all three OF
the great captains named were equal.
Aexander's disposition was fiery; liam
nibars discreet: Cnsar's calculating In
battle Alexander seemed possessed with II
divine fury; Hannibal Was cool. but bold ::
Caesar had not the initiative OF either. In in
luenco over men Hannibal was supreme
Crsar was an orator: Alexander and Hanni-
bal spoke simply. but to the point. As states
men. Alexander built on mistaken founda-
ton: Hannibars work was doomed to fall:
Cnsar's was everlasting. For performance
with slender means and against great odds
Hannibal stands highest: Alexander had luck
and never failed to use it; Hannibal had no
luck; fortune smiled on Cnssr as on no other
man. Each was great stratecst. In extent
OF conquest Alexander was the most dis
tinguished: In speed, Cesar: in endurance
Hannibal Alexander was the cavalry leader
par excellence: In tactics Caesar was inferior to
tho others: In sieges. Hannibal. As men. AL
sxander and Hannibal stir us with the touch
Of nature. as CRsar does not. Hannibal and
Alexander command our sympathy. Crsar
our admiration.