Judging previous cultures

So I am watching Ancients Misbehaving, Julius Caesar.

They are rating him on a variant of that criminal scale of antisocial behavior.

Should we consider he, who is acting pretty much as any other military leader of the time, by our own standards?

He schlepped his legions into Gaul, and to use a specific reference took a major city, and killed everybody except for roughly 800 people. Burning, pillaging and raping occurred. He basically stomped an area into submission to indicate that he was there and would be taking the lands no matter what. This type of military behavior ensued pretty much universally for the next 10 centuries.

Since he was acting ‘normally’ for the time and place, should we consider him violently nuts? I can see branding someone like Caligula nuts, he was to all accounts clinically nuts after his ‘brain fever’. He even seems to have the classical mediterranean hero impulse control issue under control except for adultery - there doesnt seem to be the random executions of later emperors. To be honest, todays politicians dont seem to be able to keep it in their pants either :rolleyes:

No expert, but IIRC Ceasers actions in Gaul were controversial even in his time. And not just because he was wasting Roman lives on what was a clear glory hunt.

When they conquered a place, with the intent to make it a province, the Romans usually did NOT rape and pillage, you would like the land to actually be profitable, no those things were needed for pacification.