> Caesar was not dictator when he fought in Gaul. He was a Roman proconsul/general fighting in his provinces the way all ancient Roman armies did, and was objectively merciful than most, although fought a much bigger war than most.

He fought it against the wishes of the senate. Notice I didn't say he was a dictator "while fighting it".

> The Gauls and Germans his armies fought against were not some kind of peace loving hippies. Their armies waged war just as violently and invaded and slaughtered (including Romans) in the same way.

Sure. Notice the size of their armies in the link I provided vs. the count of dead people and enslaved people. These were civilians.

Also notice I specifically said I didn't judge him because he's a product of his time. I just criticized the parent post for misrepresenting him and comparing him to more contemporary figures.

> The narrative that Pompey was defending the republic against a tyrant is more ancient propaganda than reality.

Agreed. Both sides were terrible in that conflict. That doesn't make him a non-dictator because he won over another dictator wannabe.

> A reasonable and accurate summary is that Julius Caesar led a violent army against enemies, fought a civil war with unrivaled clemency, and was a benevolent dictator until his assassination by the envious people he had granted clemency.

I think that's revisionism. I don't know all of these things and they are very much a matter of perspective. Frankly, I don't care since none of that is grounded in fact. It's interpretation of facts.

The two facts I provided were: he was a dictator and he was violent.

Those are indisputable objective historic facts. Were others dictators and even more violent?

Sure. That doesn't dispute these facts. Notice I very specifically avoided passing judgement on him and on the OP article.