Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him.
Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but invading Parthia would be a rather different story than invading Gaul.
Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but invading Parthia would be a rather different story than invading Gaul.
Well, sure, but when the question is "who's good at winning?", it's not obviously wrong to see what the victors think.
Hannibal was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors, even though the victors despised him.
Note, I'm not necessarily saying Caesar was bad. He did win, as you say. But he had significant materiel and troop advantages against the Gauls and against Pompey. Maybe we should credit him more as a politician and less as a general.
Montgomery vs Rommel is a good example of that too!
In fact, given the political needs in ensuing decades, there's really no need for the "story" to reflect the record at all.