In particular, his most capable commander during
the Gallic Wars, Labienus, defected to the Pompey early in the Civil War, and
was one of Caesar's chief opponents during his African campaign.

As an interesting note, it seems Labienus likely defected from Caesar for two
reasons:

1\. At the beginning of the Civil War it looked extremely unlikely Caesar
would win.

2\. Labienus felt as though Caesar took more credit than he ought to have in
the Gallic Wars, depriving him of his "auctoritas" (sort of prestige) he felt
he rightfully deserved.

Caesar's skilled defeat of Pompey and Labienus show his military skill outside
of his use of good commanders.

~~~
fapjacks
I hope you see this after all this time. Do you have a trailhead to lend me so
I can read about this instance of not having to leave his tent tomore "biased" than histories of
WWII.

There is a 500 year difference bt Herodotus and Tacitus. Even so, Herodotus
did no more than accurately record what he was told, assiduously pointing out
when he saw something first hand. Early ancient historians made up speeches,
that much is known. But by Tacitus's day, the act of writing an objective
history was not a novelty, and in fact he complains in the beginning of his
text that he is undertaking the work because he thinks his peers, also
ostensibly engaged in objective history, have not been objective enough out of
fear or hatred when covering the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and
Nero. Once again, with no reason to doubt him, I ask: why not even consider
taking one of the greatest historians whose works have been preserved for
posterity at face