Is Oliver Stone's Alexander worth a watch?

[Terminal Blue]

On the subject of Kingdom of heaven since it came up, I'd actually say its much worse than Alexander. Alexander was merely boring but Kingdom of Heaven was just offensive. Far too little history, and far too much preaching. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Christian rights activist but it did make me uncomfortable how every Christian was so cartoonishly evil and just wanted to eat Muslim babies for dinner while the few decent ones that are the main characters are actually time traveling atheists in disguise rather than Christians. Heck, even the priest that offered to ransom himself for the sake of his poorer citizens got demonized as a despicable coward because the plot had ran out of Templars to bully.

So, the thing is, Kingdom of Heaven isn't a particularly historical film. It has some cute period details, but character motivations and themes would have been unthinkable in an actual medieval context. It's very, very obviously an analogy for modern political and religious (but mostly political) conflicts.

The film uses historical events and characters, but it's not really about the real events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem, it's about a conflict between intolerance, zeal and superstition and what we would now call secular humanism. All of the major characters are Christians. There are no atheists in the film. Heck, one of the most obvious mouthpieces for the "secular humanist" view is a Hospitaller knight.

So, the central point of the film really is about what Jerusalem represents. Jerusalem is a literal place, but in Christian eschatology it's also the capital of the messianic kingdom, and as such it's used in a lot of societies to describe a kind of perfect or ideal country or society (there's an English patriotic hymn called Jerusalem which is pretty on the nose with this theme). This is the idea of Jerusalem that Balian in the film ultimately comes to, it isn't the physical place which people have fought over for centuries, but the ideal of Jerusalem that matters.

I think the only way this movie could offend a person's Christianity is if they genuinely think that the crusades are a good thing, all other religions are evil and the religious and political system should be explicitly biased towards Christians, in which case I think that's kind of the point. The point is that if you're a Christian today, you should be able to draw a line between yourself and the worst excesses of medieval Catholicism.

The film literally exists because the crusades are still being wheeled out, because "deus vult" is a far right meme and serious political commentators talk about dropping nuclear bombs on countries whose people follow the wrong religion. The point of the movie is that you can't own Jerusalem, or rather, you can't own what Jerusalem represents. The real kingdom of heaven can only be shared.

 

[Hades]

On the subject of Kingdom of heaven since it came up, I'd actually say its much worse than Alexander. Alexander was merely boring but Kingdom of Heaven was just offensive. Far too little history, and far too much preaching. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Christian rights activist but it did make me uncomfortable how every Christian was so cartoonishly evil and just wanted to eat Muslim babies for dinner while the few decent ones that are the main characters are actually time traveling atheists in disguise rather than Christians. Heck, even the priest that offered to ransom himself for the sake of his poorer citizens got demonized as a despicable coward because the plot had ran out of Templars to bully.

So, the thing is, Kingdom of Heaven isn't a particularly historical film. It has some cute period details, but character motivations and themes would have been unthinkable in an actual medieval context. It's very, very obviously an analogy for modern political and religious (but mostly political) conflicts.

The film uses historical events and characters, but it's not really about the real events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem, it's about a conflict between intolerance, zeal and superstition and what we would now call secular humanism. All of the major characters are Christians. There are no atheists in the film. Heck, one of the most obvious mouthpieces for the "secular humanist" view is a Hospitaller knight.

So, the central point of the film really is about what Jerusalem represents. Jerusalem is a literal place, but in Christian eschatology it's also the capital of the messianic kingdom, and as such it's used in a lot of societies to describe a kind of perfect or ideal country or society (there's an English patriotic hymn called Jerusalem which is pretty on the nose with this theme). This is the idea of Jerusalem that Balian in the film ultimately comes to, it isn't the physical place which people have fought over for centuries, but the ideal of Jerusalem that matters.

I think the only way this movie could offend a person's Christianity is if they genuinely think that the crusades are a good thing, all other religions are evil and the religious and political system should be explicitly biased towards Christians, in which case I think that's kind of the point. The point is that if you're a Christian today, you should be able to draw a line between yourself and the worst excesses of medieval Catholicism.

The film literally exists because the crusades are still being wheeled out, because "deus vult" is a far right meme and serious political commentators talk about dropping nuclear bombs on countries whose people follow the wrong religion. The point of the movie is that you can't own Jerusalem, or rather, you can't own what Jerusalem represents. The real kingdom of heaven can only be shared.

I realize that the movie is supposed to be an analogy for religious conflict but that's exactly my problem. The potential of the crusades is too interesting for a simplified ''fighting for religion is bad!'' story. It doesn't help that the movie isn't particularly subtle about it. The main character doesn't have an arc where he learns this but has this belief from the very beginning, as does every other person who's not irredeemably evil.

Me talking about time traveling atheist was meant in a bit of a facetious manner. Balian isn't really an atheist but he's obviously meant as a stand in for a 21th century audience member who already knows fighting over religion is bad.

A depiction of the crusades not showing a picture biased in favor of Christianity is welcome but it becomes rather moot if you swing too far to the other end of the spectrum. This is partly justified because Saladin really was better(or at least more pragmatic) than his peers but the image remain that everyone who acts like a medieval Christian is evil, everyone who acts like a medieval Muslim is fine and that everyone who acts like a 21th audience member(without anyone finding that odd) is superior to them both.

I wouldn't say the crusades are this dark chapter in the history of religion either. The narrative that the crusades still negatively affects the world today is an artificial narrative. Whole centuries have gone by where the Crusades had been practically forgotten by all cultures involved. The crusades are more of an example of how history can be misused to support someone's agenda. The Crusades also weren't abnormally brutal in the grand scheme of things. There were of course slaughters typical of ancient warfare but there were also little gestures of respect between both sides that would be absent when the Christians would come in conflict with the native Americans or each other during the wars of religion a few centuries later. The narrative that Kingdom of Heaven tries to address is important because its widely believed but that narrative also doesn't hold up to scrutiny very well either.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

On the subject of Kingdom of heaven since it came up, I'd actually say its much worse than Alexander. Alexander was merely boring but Kingdom of Heaven was just offensive. Far too little history, and far too much preaching. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Christian rights activist but it did make me uncomfortable how every Christian was so cartoonishly evil and just wanted to eat Muslim babies for dinner while the few decent ones that are the main characters are actually time traveling atheists in disguise rather than Christians. Heck, even the priest that offered to ransom himself for the sake of his poorer citizens got demonized as a despicable coward because the plot had ran out of Templars to bully.

So, the thing is, Kingdom of Heaven isn't a particularly historical film. It has some cute period details, but character motivations and themes would have been unthinkable in an actual medieval context. It's very, very obviously an analogy for modern political and religious (but mostly political) conflicts.

The film uses historical events and characters, but it's not really about the real events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem, it's about a conflict between intolerance, zeal and superstition and what we would now call secular humanism. All of the major characters are Christians. There are no atheists in the film. Heck, one of the most obvious mouthpieces for the "secular humanist" view is a Hospitaller knight.

So, the central point of the film really is about what Jerusalem represents. Jerusalem is a literal place, but in Christian eschatology it's also the capital of the messianic kingdom, and as such it's used in a lot of societies to describe a kind of perfect or ideal country or society (there's an English patriotic hymn called Jerusalem which is pretty on the nose with this theme). This is the idea of Jerusalem that Balian in the film ultimately comes to, it isn't the physical place which people have fought over for centuries, but the ideal of Jerusalem that matters.

I think the only way this movie could offend a person's Christianity is if they genuinely think that the crusades are a good thing, all other religions are evil and the religious and political system should be explicitly biased towards Christians, in which case I think that's kind of the point. The point is that if you're a Christian today, you should be able to draw a line between yourself and the worst excesses of medieval Catholicism.

The film literally exists because the crusades are still being wheeled out, because "deus vult" is a far right meme and serious political commentators talk about dropping nuclear bombs on countries whose people follow the wrong religion. The point of the movie is that you can't own Jerusalem, or rather, you can't own what Jerusalem represents. The real kingdom of heaven can only be shared.

I realize that the movie is supposed to be an analogy for religious conflict but that's exactly my problem. The potential of the crusades is too interesting for a simplified ''fighting for religion is bad!'' story. It doesn't help that the movie isn't particularly subtle about it. The main character doesn't have an arc where he learns this but has this belief from the very beginning, as does every other person who's not irredeemably evil.

Me talking about time traveling atheist was meant in a bit of a facetious manner. Balian isn't really an atheist but he's obviously meant as a stand in for a 21th century audience member who already knows fighting over religion is bad.

A depiction of the crusades not showing a picture biased in favor of Christianity is welcome but it becomes rather moot if you swing too far to the other end of the spectrum. This is partly justified because Saladin really was better(or at least more pragmatic) than his peers but the image remain that everyone who acts like a medieval Christian is evil, everyone who acts like a medieval Muslim is fine and that everyone who acts like a 21th audience member(without anyone finding that odd) is superior to them both.

I wouldn't say the crusades are this dark chapter in the history of religion either. The narrative that the crusades still negatively affects the world today is an artificial narrative. Whole centuries have gone by where the Crusades had been practically forgotten by all cultures involved. The crusades are more of an example of how history can be misused to support someone's agenda. The Crusades also weren't abnormally brutal in the grand scheme of things. There were of course slaughters typical of ancient warfare but there were also little gestures of respect between both sides that would be absent when the Christians would come in conflict with the native Americans or each other during the wars of religion a few centuries later. The narrative that Kingdom of Heaven tries to address is important because its widely believed but that narrative also doesn't hold up to scrutiny very well either.

At least the Siege of Jerusalem is the best battle scene I have seen in movie history:


Also I feel there was a wasted opportunity to make a "Sequel" by actually showing the Third Crusade, and centered around King Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.

Or heck make it entirely a Richard the Lionheart movie because that guy has quite the story.

 

[SckizoBoy]

The problem was Alexander didn't know when to stop, Caesar did. I mean he could have for example continued all the way to northern tip of the Britain and then continued to Ireland but he didn't.

Did he though? Militarily, that may be true, but perhaps more devastatingly for him, he didn't know when to stop politically...

Spoiler: At least the Siege of Jerusalem is the best battle scene I have seen in movie history

Outside of sheer spectacle, would you care to explain why you esteem this scene so? Not being contrary, because I enjoyed it, too, but I would criticise it (outside of military and historical contexts because of expedience) for being very choppy and falling victim to the film's own narrative of centralising everything on Balian.

Leaving aside the mash-up of the scene being a combo of Granicus/Issus and Gaugamela, from a tactical perspective (that is, the course of the battle from disposition and the key Macedonian tactic of charging the gap between the Persian cavalry and the centre) as well as spectacle and narrative flow, the battle of Gaugamela in Alexander would get my vote for best battle scene in modern cinematography...

Spoiler: And lulz for the arrow swishing off of Parmenios crest

The thirteen seconds from 1.59-2.12 shows why, I mean who would really bother trying to portray a syntagmata like that?

Though, that said, I am annoyed by Darius' personal hand commands that somehow get obeyed straight away from a mile off by a specific unit/formation.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The problem was Alexander didn't know when to stop, Caesar did. I mean he could have for example continued all the way to northern tip of the Britain and then continued to Ireland but he didn't.

Did he though? Militarily, that may be true, but perhaps more devastatingly for him, he didn't know when to stop politically...

Spoiler: At least the Siege of Jerusalem is the best battle scene I have seen in movie history

Outside of sheer spectacle, would you care to explain why you esteem this scene so? Not being contrary, because I enjoyed it, too, but I would criticise it (outside of military and historical contexts because of expedience) for being very choppy and falling victim to the film's own narrative of centralising everything on Balian.

Leaving aside the mash-up of the scene being a combo of Granicus/Issus and Gaugamela, from a tactical perspective (that is, the course of the battle from disposition and the key Macedonian tactic of charging the gap between the Persian cavalry and the centre) as well as spectacle and narrative flow, the battle of Gaugamela in Alexander would get my vote for best battle scene in modern cinematography...

Spoiler: And lulz for the arrow swishing off of Parmenios crest

The thirteen seconds from 1.59-2.12 shows why, I mean who would really bother trying to portray a syntagmata like that?

Though, that said, I am annoyed by Darius' personal hand commands that somehow get obeyed straight away from a mile off by a specific unit/formation.

Other then my bias for Medieval Warfare, the film more or less captured the overall feeling of a Siege. You see in the movie that days past as the Siege progresses. It takes a toll on both sides, one scene shows them deciding to burn bodies to prevent them from rotting and spreading dieseases. And in that same scene you see Saladin going as far as mourning for the loss of so many of his soldiers. And of course the sheer scope of the battle. And the pacing of it flowed perfectly.

I do question though as to whether Saladin's Caliphate could afford European looking Siege Towers and Trebuchets...

But still it was just epic.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Other then my bias for Medieval Warfare, the film more or less captured the overall feeling of a Siege. You see in the movie that days past as the Siege progresses. It takes a toll on both sides, one scene shows them deciding to burn bodies to prevent them from rotting and spreading dieseases. And in that same scene you see Saladin going as far as mourning for the loss of so many of his soldiers. And of course the sheer scope of the battle. And the pacing of it flowed perfectly.

Ah, Medieval's your poison eh... truth be told, my old man and I used feel nothing but contempt for those who espoused that era of European history (as in, being fun to study). A couple decades and a few dozen books later, changed tune. I tend towards the later, while he tends towards the earlier though.

Good points regarding the course of the siege. One thing though. While most films tend to do a bad job of portraying how many combatants there are, the film rather overplayed it, since it was notable for the Saracen army being not especially large (20000 or so). That said, it does convey the struggle pretty well.

I do question though as to whether Saladin's Caliphate could afford European looking Siege Towers and Trebuchets...

But still it was just epic.

Probably not... especially not those warwolf-esque counterweight trebuchets (for so many reasons)... couillards at best, but even they're a bit difficult to transport. Likely mangonels and other torsion based smaller siege machines. I think they should have tried showing sapping... something very lacking from films, I find... they're... kinda interesting in their own way...!

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

To me Caesar comes off as the far greater figure too. Alexander was somewhat of a one trick pony. He was a fantastic general but no statesman while Caesar was both. Alexander's empire died with him but Caesars achievements outlived him and his reforms would stay in place for centuries.

Alexander died in his early-mid thirties, though, Caesar had more time to do things. Given a few more decades of life, who is to say what Alexander may have done?

The problem was Alexander didn't know when to stop, Caesar did. I mean he could have for example continued all the way to northern tip of the Britain and then continued to Ireland but he didn't.

Er, no he really couldn't have. Caesar landed somewhere in what is now Kent, won a few battles, but due to bad luck and a serious underestimation of the locals (and the locals' weather) couldn't really push too far inland. He could never really capitalise on his successes and never managed to get beyond the borders of Kent let alone any of northern Britain, and when he left its doubtful how much of an impact his invasions had actually left behind. He know he made demands of tribute and hostages, but its unknown (and unlikely) those demands were met and since he didn't leave any garrison behind his fortifications were quickly swallowed back up by the Britons.
I mean, sure, maybe if he'd had a third or fourth attempt at Brittania he might have claimed some foothold, maybe even spread to some of the other counties, but in the two chances he had he didn't stop because he knew when to stop it was because he simply couldn't have pushed on any further

 

[Abomination]

To me Caesar comes off as the far greater figure too. Alexander was somewhat of a one trick pony. He was a fantastic general but no statesman while Caesar was both. Alexander's empire died with him but Caesars achievements outlived him and his reforms would stay in place for centuries.

I would argue that Alexander was not an amazing commander at all. He inherited an army that was employing never-before-used tactics, and 90% of his strategy was "kill the guy leading the other army".

He took a whole lot of ground but did not hold it at all. Caesar showed capability in both asymmetrical and symmetrical warfare and was able to employ far more varied tactics and strategy over his military career.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

To me Caesar comes off as the far greater figure too. Alexander was somewhat of a one trick pony. He was a fantastic general but no statesman while Caesar was both. Alexander's empire died with him but Caesars achievements outlived him and his reforms would stay in place for centuries.

Alexander died in his early-mid thirties, though, Caesar had more time to do things. Given a few more decades of life, who is to say what Alexander may have done?

The problem was Alexander didn't know when to stop, Caesar did. I mean he could have for example continued all the way to northern tip of the Britain and then continued to Ireland but he didn't.

Er, no he really couldn't have. Caesar landed somewhere in what is now Kent, won a few battles, but due to bad luck and a serious underestimation of the locals (and the locals' weather) couldn't really push too far inland. He could never really capitalise on his successes and never managed to get beyond the borders of Kent let alone any of northern Britain, and when he left its doubtful how much of an impact his invasions had actually left behind. He know he made demands of tribute and hostages, but its unknown (and unlikely) those demands were met and since he didn't leave any garrison behind his fortifications were quickly swallowed back up by the Britons.
I mean, sure, maybe if he'd had a third or fourth attempt at Brittania he might have claimed some foothold, maybe even spread to some of the other counties, but in the two chances he had he didn't stop because he knew when to stop it was because he simply couldn't have pushed on any further

So basically he WOULD have conquered all of the British Isles as soon as he was finished with Gaul and if conditions were in his favor?

Is Caesar more a Robert Baratheon then a Tywin Lannister? He rather go out fighting the world then leading it?

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

So basically he WOULD have conquered all of the British Isles as soon as he was finished with Gaul and if conditions were in his favor?

Is Caesar more a Robert Baratheon then a Tywin Lannister? He rather go out fighting the world then leading it?

Again, debatable. Like I said, while he could beat the Britons in an open battle he had trouble dealing with them as a mobile force and ultimately made no significant impact in Britannia. Its hard to say what he could have done based on two inconsequential invasions. Maybe he could have got further than a single county, maybe he would have been smashed to bits by storms in the Channel for a third time. Too many hypotheticals and variables, you know?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

So basically he WOULD have conquered all of the British Isles as soon as he was finished with Gaul and if conditions were in his favor?

Is Caesar more a Robert Baratheon then a Tywin Lannister? He rather go out fighting the world then leading it?

Again, debatable. Like I said, while he could beat the Britons in an open battle he had trouble dealing with them as a mobile force and ultimately made no significant impact in Britannia. Its hard to say what he could have done based on two inconsequential invasions. Maybe he could have got further than a single county, maybe he would have been smashed to bits by storms in the Channel for a third time. Too many hypotheticals and variables, you know?

But the question is would he campaign so much that it will stress and tireout his soldiers like Alexander did? And to the point where Caesar's army may turn against him?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Outside of sheer spectacle, would you care to explain why you esteem this scene so? Not being contrary, because I enjoyed it, too, but I would criticise it (outside of military and historical contexts because of expedience) for being very choppy and falling victim to the film's own narrative of centralising everything on Balian.

For me, it helped that the previous Orlando Bloom movie with a "siege" in it was Return of the King, which had trebuchets firing giant irregular globs of masonry as big as a house. Just, no.

So basically he WOULD have conquered all of the British Isles as soon as he was finished with Gaul and if conditions were in his favor?

Big "if", that. Anyone can conquer an impressive amount of land if everything goes their way. Britain was a long way away, and the sea routes didn't make it easy for him to supply. Also, was hard to be finished with Gaul, he kept having to play whack-a-mole with rebellions.

But the question is would he campaign so much that it will stress and tireout his soldiers like Alexander did? And to the point where Caesar's army may turn against him?

He had problems with morale, every leader did. IMHO, he was wise enough to quit while he was ahead and knew when to stop pushing his luck. In regards to military matters, he wasn't so great at the whole not getting stabbed to death thing.

 

[Hades]

To me Caesar comes off as the far greater figure too. Alexander was somewhat of a one trick pony. He was a fantastic general but no statesman while Caesar was both. Alexander's empire died with him but Caesars achievements outlived him and his reforms would stay in place for centuries.

Alexander died in his early-mid thirties, though, Caesar had more time to do things. Given a few more decades of life, who is to say what Alexander may have done?

The problem was Alexander didn't know when to stop, Caesar did. I mean he could have for example continued all the way to northern tip of the Britain and then continued to Ireland but he didn't.

Er, no he really couldn't have. Caesar landed somewhere in what is now Kent, won a few battles, but due to bad luck and a serious underestimation of the locals (and the locals' weather) couldn't really push too far inland. He could never really capitalise on his successes and never managed to get beyond the borders of Kent let alone any of northern Britain, and when he left its doubtful how much of an impact his invasions had actually left behind. He know he made demands of tribute and hostages, but its unknown (and unlikely) those demands were met and since he didn't leave any garrison behind his fortifications were quickly swallowed back up by the Britons.
I mean, sure, maybe if he'd had a third or fourth attempt at Brittania he might have claimed some foothold, maybe even spread to some of the other counties, but in the two chances he had he didn't stop because he knew when to stop it was because he simply couldn't have pushed on any further

So basically he WOULD have conquered all of the British Isles as soon as he was finished with Gaul and if conditions were in his favor?

Is Caesar more a Robert Baratheon then a Tywin Lannister? He rather go out fighting the world then leading it?

Caesar's definitely more of a Tywin. The thing about Robert is that he never wanted to actually rule but its exactly that what Caesar always wanted. Caesar was not a soldier at heart no matter how good he was at it. Caesar was a politician first and foremost. Every single thing he did as a soldier was done to further his political career. That's why he wrote whole books about what he was doing up there in Gaul, so his voters would know exactly what a great guy he was.

And I think we should see his campaigns to Britain in this light. Caesar wanted glory and by being the first Roman to invade Britain he would get that glory.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Caesar's definitely more of a Tywin. The thing about Robert is that he never wanted to actually rule but its exactly that what Caesar always wanted. Caesar was not a soldier at heart no matter how good he was at it. Caesar was a politician first and foremost. Every single thing he did as a soldier was done to further his political career. That's why he wrote whole books about what he was doing up there in Gaul, so his voters would know exactly what a great guy he was.

To illustrate that point, there is a story about Caesar and his companions passing through a particularly wretched village in the middle of nowhere. One of his companions wondered if the people there would fight for leadership the way the most important Romans did, and Caesar said he'd rather by the leader of such a place than second most important in Rome.

Of course, he could have taken his money and gone off to some small town somewhere, so he was obviously not telling the truth, but it does say something about his character.

(Mind you, not sure that that is incompatible with being a soldier at heart.)

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Regarding Kingdom of Heaven. I fail to see how that movie is seen as a commentary on the USA wars in Afghanistan and Iraq/Wars on Terror?

 

[Squilookle]

Honestly if anyone actually enjoyed dragging themselves through Kingdom of Heaven, then knock yourself out- you'll probably love Alexander.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

So basically he WOULD have conquered all of the British Isles as soon as he was finished with Gaul and if conditions were in his favor?

Is Caesar more a Robert Baratheon then a Tywin Lannister? He rather go out fighting the world then leading it?

Again, debatable. Like I said, while he could beat the Britons in an open battle he had trouble dealing with them as a mobile force and ultimately made no significant impact in Britannia. Its hard to say what he could have done based on two inconsequential invasions. Maybe he could have got further than a single county, maybe he would have been smashed to bits by storms in the Channel for a third time. Too many hypotheticals and variables, you know?

But the question is would he campaign so much that it will stress and tireout his soldiers like Alexander did? And to the point where Caesar's army may turn against him?

Maybe. Caesar maintained his popularity with his troops by winning, meaning they stayed alive and had plenty of booty. You force them to keep going to the soggy little island at the end of the world (or so they believed) where everything is damp and cold, they might get drowned at sea by storms, foraging for supplies means you get run down by a chariot and there's not much shiny stuff to pinch even when you win? Yeah I don't see that going down too well

 

[SckizoBoy]

Maybe. Caesar maintained his popularity with his troops by winning, meaning they stayed alive and had plenty of booty. You force them to keep going to the soggy little island at the end of the world (or so they believed) where everything is damp and cold, they might get drowned at sea by storms, foraging for supplies means you get run down by a chariot and there's not much shiny stuff to pinch even when you win? Yeah I don't see that going down too well

That's... part of it, but this, at least, explains the worst consequences of the Marian Reforms.

However, leaving aside the conventions of magisterial army command that he wrecked, Caesar didn't actually abandon his British venture because of any military shortcomings (well, not the second time around at least) or lack of enthusiasm/loyalty of his troops, but because of domestic Gallic issues that caused severe civil unrest. Besides, like now, it is probable that Britain and TAG's climate was sufficiently similar that his legions (whether Hispanic or Gallic) didn't care much for the difference in location except for the prone-to-seasickness. Notably, VII Claudia (one of the original Hispanic legions) was the legion that crossed to Britain on both occasions with Caesar. I doubt he'd have taken them if he worried about their loyalty.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Maybe. Caesar maintained his popularity with his troops by winning, meaning they stayed alive and had plenty of booty. You force them to keep going to the soggy little island at the end of the world (or so they believed) where everything is damp and cold, they might get drowned at sea by storms, foraging for supplies means you get run down by a chariot and there's not much shiny stuff to pinch even when you win? Yeah I don't see that going down too well

That's... part of it, but this, at least, explains the worst consequences of the Marian Reforms.

However, leaving aside the conventions of magisterial army command that he wrecked, Caesar didn't actually abandon his British venture because of any military shortcomings (well, not the second time around at least) or lack of enthusiasm/loyalty of his troops, but because of domestic Gallic issues that caused severe civil unrest. Besides, like now, it is probable that Britain and TAG's climate was sufficiently similar that his legions (whether Hispanic or Gallic) didn't care much for the difference in location except for the prone-to-seasickness. Notably, VII Claudia (one of the original Hispanic legions) was the legion that crossed to Britain on both occasions with Caesar. I doubt he'd have taken them if he worried about their loyalty.

Oh I wasn't saying that was the reason Caesar left the first couple of times. I was going back to Sam's hypothetical "what if Caesar had had another crack at the British Isles" idea. He was wondering if another invasion would be pushing the legions too far, and I'm suggesting it might given that the only real gain to invading Britain is political capital which your average Roman squaddie isn't going to really care about

 

[SckizoBoy]

Oh I wasn't saying that was the reason Caesar left the first couple of times. I was going back to Sam's hypothetical "what if Caesar had had another crack at the British Isles" idea. He was wondering if another invasion would be pushing the legions too far, and I'm suggesting it might given that the only real gain to invading Britain is political capital which your average Roman squaddie isn't going to really care about

Given what happened in 50, I'd say there was no time. Roman domestic politics of the 1st century BC being what it was, I'm sure if there was a sufficient lull (post Civil War largely taken up by his dalliances with Cleopatra probably doesn't count for him...!) at some point or he hadn't been assassinated and succeeded in centralising power in Rome/managed to resolve the matter of Romanising the provinces, he'd have given it another try, I think. Having been before and knowing what he could do, I think he could have done it, had political ambition not got the better of him. Militarily, there's no reason why not, as his veterans from the eight legions had followed him from one side of the Mediterranean to the other (& back in no small part), so I don't think they'd take issue with following him some more. And given that the Spanish legions were raised in 65 and the Gallic in 58-7, with a term of service of 25 years, they would have been fine for another few years at least, the X's playing up post-Dyrrhacium notwithstanding.