It still amazes me that over 2,000 years later we have the direct writings of Julius Caesar of his various campaigns. I believe these texts are still used heavi

It still amazes me that over 2,000 years later we have the direct writings of Julius Caesar of his various campaigns. I believe these texts are still used heavily in teaching Latin because the language is so clear. Obviously there's bias involved in his accounts but they still represent an extraordinary first hadn account of Roman conquests. Dan Carlin has an episode on what he calls the Celtic Holocaust, the conquest of Gaul (ie modern day France). It's called this because it's estimated a third of the population was killed in the process. From a historical perspective, Caesar also could've lost here, which again would've massively changed history. There would be conquering and settling of Britannia without Gaul. And Britannia was important for many Roman emperors after that (eg Constantine, who converted Rome to Christianity, was proclaimed emperor by his troops in modern day York). Anyway, part of what drove the Roman psyche with Gaul was that early in Roman history (the 4th century BCE IIRC), Rome was sacked by the Gauls. It's why we don't have much history before this and why the origins of Rome are shrouded in mystery and legend (ie most view the tales of Romulus and Remus as apocryphal at best). But historians make the case of why conquering Gaul was so important to Rome. I was reminded of this when you mentioned the conquest of Baghdad. The damage can be well beyond the loss of culture or literary works.