> Pointing out that the Romans had slaves as if it somehow differentiated them seems misleading I'm sorry are you being purposefully obtuse here? >Because t

> Pointing out that the Romans had slaves as if it somehow differentiated them seems misleading I'm sorry are you being purposefully obtuse here? >Because they didn't do anything substantively different in this regard? Anyway that's tangential and semi-irrelevant to my point. The scale of slavery in Roman Italy was on a completely different level than anywhere else in the Mediterranean or the Hellenic world. As far as we can tell the level of exploitation the Roman aristocracy engaged in didn't really have any parallel in the ancient world (and it didn't benefit anyone but them especially not the lower class Roman citizens in the Italian countryside). > n some cases, less, and other cases more. I would assume it was usually less. Sometimes significantly. In part because of depopulation following the extreme atrocities inflicted by the Romans and because most of the newly captured slaves were transported to Italy. You might have a point though for instance the Romans basically slavery in Carthage which was quite and an achievement by ancient standards... > He could have chosen to go east to do his conquering I don't think he could've chosen that at all considering the political situation in the Roman empire at the time. > It wouldn't be surprising if they both agreed that it was time someone do something about the threat they posed. Everything you're saying is almost purely conjecture. In any case reducing/removing the Gaulic threat to Rome you keep talking about (which again wasn't really an issue on the Italian side of the alps anymore anyway). Anyway the exact justification are hardly relevant when Ceasar's conquest was mainly driven by personal ambition and greed (which doesn't make him special compared to most other Roman, Celtic or Greek warlords he was just extremely effective at it).