Chapter XXXIV: Appendix: D (3)

[177] It is an error to translate _Arar, quod per fines Æduorum et Sequanorum in Rhodamam influit_, by the words, “the Saône, which forms the common boundary line of the Ædui and the Sequani.” Cæsar always understands by _fines_, territory, and not boundary line. He expresses himself very differently when he speaks of a river separating territories. (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 6, 83; VII. 5.) The expression _per fines_ thus confirms the supposition that the territories of these two peoples extended on both sides of the Saône. (_See Plate 2._)

[178] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 12.--The excavations, carried on in 1862 between Trévoux and Riottier, on the plateaux of La Bruyère and Saint-Bernard, leave no doubt of the place of this defeat. They revealed the existence of numerous sepulchres, as well Gallo-Roman as Celtic. The tumuli furnished vases of coarse clay, and many fragments of arms in silex, ornaments in bronze, iron arrow-heads, fragments of sockets. These sepultures are some by incineration, others by inhumation. In the first, the cremation had nowhere been complete, which proves that they had been burnt hastily, and excludes all notion of an ordinary cemetery. Two common fosses were divided each into two compartments, one of which contained cinders, the other human skeletons, thrown in pell-mell, skeletons of men, women, and children. Lastly, numerous country ovens line, as it were, the road followed by the Helvetii. These ovens, very common at the foot of the abrupt hills of Trévoux, Saint-Didier, Frans, Jassans, and Mizérieux, are found again on the left bank of the Ain and as far as the neighbourhood of Ambronay.

[179] Cæsar declares, on two different occasions, the fixed design of the Helvetii to establish themselves in the country of the Santones (I. 9 and 11), and Titus Livius confirms this fact in these words: “Cæsar Helvetios, gentem vagam, domuit, quæ, sedem quærens, in provinciam Cæsaris Narbonem iter facere volebat.” (_Epitome_, CIII.) Had they, for the execution of this project, the choice between several roads (the word “road” being taken here in the general sense)? Some authors, not considering the topography of France, have believed that, to go to the Santones, the Helvetii should have marched by the shortest line, from east to west, and passed the Loire towards Roanne. But they would have had first to pass, in places almost impassable, the mountains which separate the Saône from the Loire, and, had they arrived there, they would have found their road barred by another chain of mountains, that of Le Forez, which separates the Loire from the Allier.

The only means of going from the Lower Saône into Saintonge consists in travelling at first to the north-west towards the sources of the Bourbince, where is found the greatest depression of the chain of mountains which separates the Saône from the Loire, and marching subsequently to the west, to descend towards the latter river. This is so true, that at an epoch very near to our own, before the construction of the railways, the public conveyances, to go from Lyons to La Rochelle, did not pass by Roanne, but took the direction to the north-west, to Autun, and thence to Nevers, in the valley of the Loire. We understand, in exploring this mountainous country, why Cæsar was obliged to confine himself to pursuing the Helvetii, without being ever able to attack them. We cannot find a single point where he could have gained upon them by rapidity of movement, or where he could execute any manœuvre whatever.

[180] The Romans used little precision in the division of time. Forcellini (_Lex._, voce _Hora_) refers to Pliny and Censorinus. He remarks that the day--that is, the time between the rising and setting of the sun--was divided into twelve parts, _at all seasons of the year_, and the night the same, from which it would result that in summer the hours of the day were longer than in winter, and _vice versa_ for the nights.--Galenus (_De San. Tuend._, VI. 7) observed that at Rome the longest days were equal to fifteen equinoctial hours. Now, these fifteen hours only reckoning for twelve, it happened that towards the solstice each hour was more than a quarter longer than towards the equinox. This remark was not new, for it is found in Plautus. One of his personages says to a drunkard: “Thou wilt drink four good harvests of Massic wine in an hour!” “Add,” replied the drunkard, “in an hour of winter.” (Plautus, _Pseudolus_, v. I, 302, edit. Ritschl.)--Vegetius says that the soldier ought to make twenty miles in five hours, and notes that he speaks of hours in summer, which at Rome, according to the foregoing calculation, would be equivalent to six hours and a quarter towards the equinox. (Vegetius, _Mil._, I. 9.)

Pliny (_Hist. Nat._, VII. 60) remarks that, “at the time when the Twelve Tables were compiled, the only divisions of time known were the rising and setting of the sun; and that, according to the statement of Varro, the first public solar dial was erected near the rostra, on a column, by M. Valerius Messala, who brought it from Catania in 491, thirty years after the one ascribed to Papirius; and that it was in 595 that Scipio Nasica, the colleague of M. Popilius Lænas, divided the hours of night and day, by means of a clepsydra or water-clock, which he consecrated under a covered building.”

Censorinus (_De Die Natali_, xxiii., a book dated in the year 991 of Rome, or 338 A.D.) repeats, with some additions, the details given by Pliny. “There is,” he says, “the _natural_ day and the _civil_ day. The first is the time which passes between the rising and setting of the sun; on the contrary, the night begins with the setting and ends with the rising of the sun. The _civil_ day comprises a revolution of the heaven--that is, a true day and a true night; so that when one says that a person has lived thirty days, we must understand that he has lived the same number of nights.

“We know that the day and the night are each divided into twelve hours. The Romans were three hundred years before they were acquainted with hours. The word _hour_ is not found in the Twelve Tables. They said in those times, ‘before or after mid-day.’ Others divided the day, as well as the night, into four parts--a practice which is preserved in the armies, where they divide the night into four watches.” Upon these and other data, M. Le Verrier has had the goodness to draw up a table, which will be found at the end of the volume, and which indicates the increase or decrease of the hours with the seasons, and the relationship of the Roman _watches_ with our modern hours. (_See Appendix B._)

[181] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 22.

[182] They reckon from Villefranche to Remilly about 170 kilomètres.

[183] Each soldier received twenty-five pounds of wheat every fortnight.

[184] It is generally admitted that Bibracte stood on the site of Autun, on account of the inscription discovered at Autun in the seventeenth century, and now preserved in the cabinet of antiquities at the Bibliothèque Impériale. Another opinion, which identifies Bibracte with Mont Beuvray (a mountain presenting a great surface, situated thirteen kilomètres to the west of Autun), had nevertheless already found, long ago, some supporters. It will be remarked first that the Gauls chose for the site of their towns, when they could, places difficult of access: in broken countries, these were steep mountains (as Gergovia, Alesia, Uxellodunum, &c.); in flat countries, they were grounds surrounded by marshes (such as Avaricum). The Ædui, according to this, would not have built their principal town on the site of Autun, situated at the foot of the mountains. It was believed that a plateau so elevated as that of Mont Beuvray (its highest point is 810 mètres above the sea) could not have been occupied by a great town. Yet the existence of eight or ten roads, which lead to this plateau, deserted for so many centuries, and some of which are in a state of preservation truly astonishing, ought to have led to a contrary opinion. Let us add that recent excavations leave no further room for doubt. They have brought to light, over an extent of 120 hectares, foundations of Gaulish towers, some round, others square; of mosaics, of foundations of Gallo-Roman walls, gates, hewn stones, heaps of roof tiles, a prodigious quantity of broken amphoræ, a semicircular theatre, &c.... Everything, in fact, leads us to place Bibracte on Mont Beuvray: the striking resemblance of the two names, the designation of Φροὑριον, which Strabo gives to Bibracte, and even the vague and persistent tradition which, prevailing among the inhabitants of the district, points to Mont Beuvray as a centre of superstitious regard.

[185] The cavalry was divided into _turmæ_, and the _turma_ into three decuries of ten men each.

[186] The word _sarcinæ_, the original sense of which is baggage or burthens, was employed sometimes to signify the bundles carried by the soldiers (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 17), sometimes for the heavy baggage (_De Bello Civili_, I, 81). Here we must take _sarcinæ_ as comprising both. This is proved by the circumstance that the six legions of the Roman army were on the hill. Now, if Cæsar had sent the heavy baggage forward, towards Bibracte, as General de Gœler believes, he would have sent with it, as an escort, the two legions of the new levy, as he did, the year following, in the campaign against the Nervii. (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 19.)

[187] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 24.--In the phalanx, the men of the first rank covered themselves with their bucklers, overlapping one another before them, while those of the other ranks held them horizontally over their heads, arranged like the tiles of a roof.

[188] According to Plutarch (_Cæsar_, 20), he said, “I will mount on horseback when the enemy shall have taken flight.”

[189] The _pilum_ was a sort of javelin thrown by the hand: its total length was from 1·70 to 2 mètres; its head was a slender flexible blade from 0·60 to 1 mètre long, weighing from 300 to 600 grammes, terminating in a part slightly swelling, which sometimes formed a barbed point.

The shaft, sometimes round, sometimes square, had a diameter of from 25 to 32 millimètres. It was fixed to the head by ferules, or by pegs, or by means of a socket.

Such are the characteristics presented by the fragments of _pila_ found at Alise. They answer in general to the descriptions we find in Polybius (VI. 28), in Dionysius (V. 46), and in Plutarch (_Marius_). _Pila_ made on the model of those found at Alise, and weighing with their shaft from 700 grammes to 1·200 kilog., have been thrown to a distance of 30 and 40 mètres: we may therefore fix at about 25 mètres the average distance to which the _pilum_ carried.

[190] _Latere aperto_, the right side, since the buckler was carried on the left arm. We read, indeed, in Titus Livius: “Et cum in latus dextrum, quod parebat, Numidæ jacularentur, translatis in dextrum scutis,” &c. (XXII. 50.)

[191] Dio Cassius (XXXVIII. 33) says on this subject that “the Helvetii were not all on the field of battle, on account of their great number, and of the haste with which the first had made the attack. Suddenly those who had remained in the rear came to attack the Romans, when they were already occupied in pursuing the enemy. Cæsar ordered his cavalry to continue the pursuit; with his legions, he turned against the new assailants.”

[192] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 20.

[193] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 26.--Till now the field of battle where Cæsar defeated the Helvetii has not been identified. The site which we have adopted, between Luzy and Chides, satisfies all the requirements of the text of the “Commentaries.” Different authors have proposed several other localities; but the first cause of error in their reckonings consists in identifying Bibracte with Autun, which we cannot admit; and further, not one of these localities fulfils the necessary topographical conditions. In our opinion, we must not seek the place of engagement to the east of Bibracte, for the Helvetii, to go from the Lower Saône to the Santones, must have passed to the west, and not to the east, of that town. Cussy-la-Colonne, where the field of battle is most generally placed, does not, therefore, suit at all; and, moreover, Cussy-la-Colonne is too near to the territory of the Lingones to require four days for the Helvetii to arrive there after the battle.

[194] “He drove back this people into their country as a shepherd drives back his flock into the fold.” (Florus, II. x. 3.)

[195] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 29.

[196] Cæsar pursued the Helvetii, taking for auxiliaries about 20,000 Gaulish mountaineers. (Appian, _De Rebus Gallicis_, IV. 15, edit. Schweigh.)

[197] Appian, _De Bello Celt._, IV. i. 3.

[198] Tacitius (_Germania_, iv. 32.) speaks of this custom of the German horsemen of fighting on foot. Titus Livius (XLIV. 26) ascribes this practice to the Bastarni (the Moldavians.)

[199] Appian, _De Bello Celt._, IV. i. 3.

[200] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 1, 2, 3.--General de Gœler, in our opinion, extends the territory of the Ubii much too far to the south.

[201] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 25.--This statement agrees well enough with the length of the Black Forest and the Odenwald, which is sixty leagues.

[202] It is difficult to fix with precision the localities inhabited at this period by the German peoples, for they were nearly all nomadic, and were continually pressing one upon another. Cæsar, in his fourth book _De Bello Gallico_ (cap. I), asserts that the Suevi never occupied the same territory more than one year.

[203] Strabo (VII., p. 244) relates, after Posidonius, that the Boii had inhabited first the Hercynian forest; elsewhere he says (V. 177) that the Boii established themselves among the Taurisci, a people dwelling near Noricum. The same author (VII. 243) places the solitudes inhabited by the Boii to the east of Vindelicia (_Southern Bavaria and Western Austria_). Lastly, he says (IV. 471) that the Rhætii and the Vindelicii are the neighbours of the Helvetii and the Boii. The Nemetes and the Vangiones subsequently passed over to the left bank of the Rhine, towards Worms and Spire, and the Ubii towards Cologne.

[204] Which formed the present Upper Alsace.

[205] We look upon it as certain, from the tenth chapter of Book IV. of the “Commentaries,” that the Triboci occupied also the left bank of the Rhine. We therefore naturally place among this German people the spot where the army of Ariovistus was assembled. Moreover, to understand the campaign about to be related, we must not seek this place, in the valley of the Rhine, higher than Strasburg.

[206] In the speech which Dio Cassius puts in the mouth of Cæsar before entering on the campaign against Ariovistus, he dilates upon the right which the governor of the Roman province has to act according to circumstances, and to take only his own advice. This speech is naturally amplified and arranged by Dio Cassius, but the principal arguments must be true. (Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 41.--_De Bello Gallico_, I. 33, 34, 35.)

[207] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 36.

[208] Since this information was given to Cæsar by the Treviri, it is certain that the Suevi assembled on the Rhine, opposite or not far from the country of the Treviri, and, in all probability, towards Mayence, where the valley of the Maine presents a magnificent and easy opening upon the Rhine.

[209] Between Tanlay and Gland, the Roman way is still called the _Route de César_. (_See the map of the Etat-Major._)

[210] To explain this rapid movement upon Besançon, we must suppose that Cæsar, at the moment when he received news of the march of Ariovistus, believed him to be as near Besançon as he was himself. In fact, Cæsar might fear that during the time the news had taken to reach him, the German king, who had already advanced three days’ journey out of his territory, might have arrived in the neighbourhood of Mulhausen or Cernay. Now Cæsar was at Arc-en-Barrois, 130 kilomètres from Besançon, and the distance from this latter town to Cernay is 125 kilomètres.

[211] The “Commentaries” give here the erroneous number DC: the breadth of the isthmus which the Doubs forms at Besançon cannot have undergone any sensible variation; it is at present 480 mètres, or 1,620 Roman feet. The copyists have, no doubt, omitted an M before DC.

[212] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 38.

[213] “ ... qui ex urbe, amicitiæ causa, Cæsarem secuti, non magnum in re militari usum habebant.” (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 39.)--We see in the subsequent wars Appius repairing to Cæsar to obtain appointments of military tribunes, and Cicero recommending for the same grade several persons, among others, M. Curtius, Orfius, and Trebatius. “I have asked him for a tribuneship for M. Curtius.” (_Epist. ad Quint._, II. 15; _Epist. Famil._, VII. 5, a letter to Cæsar.) Trebatius, though a bad soldier, was treated with kindness, and at once appointed a military tribune. “I wonder that you despise the advantages of the tribuneship, especially since they have allowed you to dispense with the fatigues of the military service.” (Cicero, _Epist. Famil._, VII. 8.)--“Resign yourself to the military service, and remain.” (Cicero, _Epist. Famil._, VII. 11.)--Trebatius appeared little satisfied, complained of the severity of the service, and, when Cæsar passed into Britain, he prudently remained on the Continent.

[214] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 36.

[215] This shows that then, in Italy, a great number of slaves were Germans.

[216] This Latin phrase indicated the putting the troops in march.

[217] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 41.

[218] There has been much discussion on the meaning of the words _millium amplius quinquaginta circuitu_. Some pretend that the number of fifty miles means the whole distance, and that thus Cæsar would have taken seven days to travel fifty miles, which would make about seven kilomètres a day: this supposition is inadmissible. Others pretend, on the contrary, that we must add fifty miles to the direct distance. This last interpretation is refuted by a passage in the “Commentaries” (_De Bello Civili_, I. 64). We read there, _Ac tantum fuit in militibus studii, ut, millium vi. ad iter addito circuito_, &c. This shows that when Cæsar means to speak of a turn of road, to be added to the total length of the route, he is careful to indicate it. We consider it more simple, therefore, to admit that the fifty miles are only a part of the distance performed during the seven days’ march; that is, that after making a circular _détour_ of fifty miles, which required three or four days, Cæsar had still to march some time before he met the enemy, following the direct road from Besançon to the Rhine. The study of the ground completely justifies this view, for it was sufficient for Cæsar to make a circuit of fifty miles (or seventy-five kilomètres) to turn the mass of mountains which extends from Besançon to Montbéliard.

[219] It is probable that, during the negotiations, Ariovistus had approached nearer to the Roman camp, in order to facilitate intercommunication; for, if he had remained at a distance of thirty-six kilomètres from Cæsar, we should be obliged to admit that the German army, which subsequently advanced towards the Roman camp, in a single day, to within nine kilomètres, had made a march of twenty-five kilomètres at least, which is not probable when we consider that it dragged after it wagons and women and children.

[220] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 42.

[221] _Planities erat magna, et in ea tumulus terrenus satis grandis_.... (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 43)--This phrase would be sufficient itself to prove that the encounter of the two armies took place in the plains of Upper Alsace. We may ask how, in spite of a text so explicit, different writers should have placed the field of battle in the mountains of the Jura, where there is nowhere to be found a plain of any extent. It is only at Mulhausen, to the north of the Doller, that the vast plain of the valley of the Rhine opens.

Cæsar employs three times the word _tumulus_ to designate the eminence on which his interview with Ariovistus took place, and he never calls it _collis_. Is it not evident from this that we must consider this _tumulus_ as a rounded knoll, insulated in the plain? Now it is to be considered that the plain which extends to the north of the Doller, between the Vosges and the Rhine, contains a rather large number of small rounded eminences, to which the word _collis_ would not apply, and which the word _knoll_ or _tumulus_ perfectly describes. The most remarkable of these are situated, one near Feldkirch, the other between Wittenheim and Ensisheim. We may suppose that the interview took place on one of these knolls, marked 231 on Plate 6.

General de Gœler has adopted as the place of the interview an eminence which rises on the left bank of the Little Doller, to the north of the village of Aspach-le-Bas. Cæsar would have called this eminence _collis_, for it is rather extensive, and, by its elongated form, but not rounded, does not at all represent to the eye what is commonly called a _knoll_ or _tumulus_; moreover, contrary to the text, this elevation is not, properly speaking, in the plain. It is only separated from the hills situated to the south by a brook, and the plain begins only from its northern slope.

[222] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 47.

[223] It is not unworthy of remark that Cæsar’s communications with the Leuci and the Lingones remained open. We have seen that, in his address to the troops at Besançon, he reckoned on obtaining from these peoples a part of his supplies.

[224] Tacitus (_Germania_, VI. 32) and Titus Livius (XLIV. 26) speak of this method of fighting employed by the Germans.

[225] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 50.--The predictions of these priestesses, who pretended to know the future by the noise of waters and by the vortexes made by the streams in rivers, forbade their giving battle before the new moon. (Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 21.)

[226] “Having skirmished opposite their retrenchments and the hills on which they were encamped, he exasperated and excited them to such a degree of rage, that they descended and fought desperately.” (Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 21.)

[227] General de Gœler adopts this same field of battle, but he differs from us in placing the Romans with their back to the Rhine. It would be impossible to understand in this case how, after their defeat, the Germans would have been able to fly towards that river, Cæsar cutting off their retreat; or how Ariovistus, reckoning upon the arrival of the Suevi, should have put Cæsar between him and the re-inforcements he expected.

[228] As the legions were six in number, the above phrase proves that in this campaign Cæsar had one quæstor and five lieutenants. (_See Appendix D._)

[229] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.--We have adopted the version of Dio Cassius, as we cannot admit with Orosius that an army of more than 100,000 men could have formed only a single phalanx.

[230] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.

[231] Orosius expresses himself thus: “United in one phalanx, and their heads protected by their bucklers, they attempted, thus covered, to break the Roman lines; but some Romans, not less agile than bold, rushed upon this sort of tortoise, grappled with the German soldiers body to body, tore from them their shields, with which they were covered as with scales, and stabbed them through the shoulders.” (Orosius, VI. 7.)

[232] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.

[233] Appian, _De Bello Celt._, IV. 1, 3.

[234] The manuscripts followed by the early editors of the “Commentaries” gave some the number of 50 miles, others that of 5 miles. We believe that Cæsar wrote 50 miles. This is proved by the very words he employs, _neque prius fugere destiterunt_ ... which could not be applied to a flight of merely a few miles. Moreover, the testimony of old writers confirms the number of 50 miles: Paulus Orosius relates that the carnage extended over a space of 40 miles; Plutarch, over 300 or 400 stadia, that is, 35 or 50 miles, according to the editions; and J. Celsus (Petrarch) (_De Vita J. Cæsaris_, I., p. 40, edit. Lemaire) says, _usque ad ripam Rheni fuga perpetua fuit_, a phrase in which the word _perpetua_ is significative.

Modern writers, supposing erroneously that Cæsar had indicated the distance, that is, the shortest line from the field of battle to the Rhine, have discussed lengthily the number to be adopted. They have overlooked the fact that the Latin text states, not exactly the distance from the field of battle to the Rhine, but the length of the line of retreat from the battle-field to the river. This line may have been oblique towards the Rhine, for it is probable that the retreat of the Germans lay down the valley of the Ill, which they had previously ascended. We must therefore seek towards Rhinau the point where they attempted to re-pass the river.

[235] According to Dio Cassius (XXXVIII. 50), Ariovistus, followed by his cavalry, succeeded in escaping. Having reached the right bank, he collected the fugitives; but he died shortly afterwards (_De Bello Gallico_, V. 29), perhaps of his wounds.

[236] Appian. _De Bello Celt._, IV. 1, 3.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 21.

[237] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 53.--The war against Ariovistus became the subject of a poem by P. Terentius Varro Atacinus (_De Bello Sequanico_). (Priscian, X., p. 877, P.)

[238] “Inita æstate.” (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 2.)--_Æstas_ according to Forcellini, signifies the period comprised between the two equinoxes of spring and autumn.

[239] See his biography, _Appendix D_.

[240] Strabo, IV. 171, V. 174.

[241] “In the year 642, the consul C. Manlius and the proconsul Q. Cæpio were defeated by the Cimbri and the Teutones, and there perished 80,000 Romans and allies and 40,000 valets (_colones et lixæ_). Of all the army, ten men only escaped.” (Orosius, V. 16.) These data are no doubt exaggerated, for Titus Livius (XXXVI. 38) pretends that Orosius took his information from Valerius of Antium, who habitually magnified his numbers.

[242] This route, the most direct from Besançon to the territory of the Remi, is still marked by the numerous vestiges of the Roman road which joined Vesontio with Durocortorum (_Besançon_ with _Rheims_).

[243] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 4.

[244] The word _fines_ in Cæsar, always signifies territory. We must therefore understand by _extremi fines_ the part of the territory farthest removed from the centre, and not the extreme frontier, as certain translators have thought. The Aisne crossed the northern part of the country of the Remi, and did not form its boundary. (_See Plate 2._)

[245] The retrenchments of this tête-du-pont, especially the side parallel to the Aisne, are still visible at Berry-au-Bac. The gardens of several of the inhabitants are made upon the rampart itself, and the fosse appears at the outside of the village in the form of a cistern. The excavations have displayed distinctly the profile of the fosse.

[246] The excavations undertaken in 1862, by bringing to light the fosses of the camp, showed that they were 18 feet wide, with a depth of 9 or 10. (_See Plates 8 and 9._) If, then, we admit that the platform of earth of the parapet was 10 feet wide, it would have measured 8 feet in height, which, with the palisade of 4 feet, would give the crest of the parapet a command of 22 feet above the bottom of the fosse.

[247] The following localities have been suggested for Bibrax: _Bièvre_, _Bruyères_, _Neufchâtel_, _Beaurieux_, and the mountain called _Vieux-Laon_. Now that the camp of Cæsar has been discovered on the hill of Mauchamp, there is only room to hesitate between Beaurieux and Vieux-Laon, as they are the only localities among those just mentioned which, as the text requires, are eight miles distant from the Roman camp. But Beaurieux will not suit, for the reason that even if the Aisne had passed, at the time of the Gallic war, at the foot of the heights on which the town is situated, we cannot understand how the re-enforcements sent by Cæsar could have crossed the river and penetrated into the place, which the Belgian army must certainly have invested on all sides. This fact is, on the contrary, easily understood when we apply it to the mountain of Vieux-Laon, which presents towards the south impregnable escarpments. The Belgæ would have surrounded it on all parts except on the south, and it was no doubt by that side that, during the night, Cæsar’s re-enforcements would enter the town.

[248] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 7.--(_Plate 9_ gives the plan of the camp, which has been found entire, and that of the redoubts with the fosses, as they have been exposed to view by the excavations; but we have found it impossible to explain the outline of the redoubts.)

[249] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 12.--Sabinus evidently commanded on both sides the river.

[250] _De Bello Gallico_ II. 12.--Sabinus evidently commanded on both sides the river.

[251] See the biographies of Cæsar’s lieutenants, _Appendix D_.

[252] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 11.

[253] The _vineæ_ were small huts constructed of light timber work covered with hurdles and hides of animals. (Vegetius, Lib. IV. c. 16.) See the figures on Trajan column.

In a regular siege the _vineæ_ were constructed out of reach of the missiles, and they were then pushed in file one behind the other up to the wall of the place attacked, a process which was termed _agere vineas_; they thus formed long covered galleries which, sometimes placed at right angles to the wall and sometimes parallel, performed the same part as the branches and parallels in modern sieges.

[254] The terrace (_agger_) was an embankment, made of any materials, for the purpose of establishing either platforms to command the ramparts of a besieged town, or viaducts to conduct the towers and machines against the walls, when the approaches to the place presented slopes which were too difficult to climb. These terraces were used also sometimes to fill up the fosse. The _agger_ was most commonly made of trunks of trees, crossed and heaped up like the timber in a funeral pile.--(Thucydides, _Siege of Platæa_.--Lucan, _Pharsalia_.--Vitruvius, book XI., _Trajan Column_.)

[255] Antiquaries hesitate between Beauvais, Montdidier, or Breteuil. We adopt Breteuil as the most probable, according to the dissertation on Bratuspantium, by M. l’Abbé Devic, cure of Mouchy-le-Châtel. In fact, the distance from Breteuil to Amiens is just twenty-five miles, as indicated in the “Commentaries.” We must add, however, that M. l’Abbé Devic does not place Bratuspantium at Breteuil itself, but close to that town, in the space now comprised between the communes of Vaudeuil, Caply, Beauvoir, and their dependencies.--Paris, 1843, and Arras, 1865.

[256] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 15.

[257] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 14, 15, 16. Mons is, in fact, seated on a hill completely surrounded by low meadows, traversed by the sinuous courses of the Haine and the Trouille.

[258] According to scholars, the frontier between the Nervii and the Ambiani lay towards Fins and Bapaume. Supposing the three days’ march of the Roman army to be reckoned from this point, it would have arrived, in three days, of twenty-five kilomètres each, at Bavay.

[259] If Cæsar had arrived on the right bank of the Sambre, as several authors have pretended, he would already have found that river at Landrecies, and would have had no need to learn, on the third day of this march, that he was only fifteen kilomètres from it.

[260] It is worthy of remark, that still at the present day the fields in the neighbourhood of the Sambre are surrounded with hedges very similar to those here described. Strabo (II., p. 161) also mentions these hedges.

[261] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 17.

[262] “The signal for battle is a purple mantle, which is displayed before the general’s tent.” (Plutarch, _Fabius Maximus_, 24.)

[263] _Signum dare_, “to give the word of order.” In fact, we read in Suetonius: “Primo etiam imperii die signum excubanti tribuno dedit: _Optimam matrem_.” (_Nero_, 9; _Caligula_, 56.--Tacitus, _Histor._, III. 22.)

[264] The soldiers wore either the skins of wild beasts, or plumes or other ornaments, to mark their grades. “Excussit cristas galeis.” (Lucan, _Pharsalia_, line 158.)

[265] Except the Treviran cavalry, who had withdrawn.

[266] According to Titus Livius (_Epitome_, CIV.), 1,000 armed men succeeded in escaping.

[267] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 28.

[268] According to the researches which have been carried on by the Commandant Locquessye in the country supposed to have been formerly occupied by the Aduatuci, two localities only, Mount Falhize and the part of the mountain of Namur on which the citadel is built, appear to agree with the site of the _oppidum_ of the Aduatuci. But Mount Falhize is not surrounded with rocks on all sides, as the Latin text requires. The countervallation would have had a development of more than 15,000 feet, and it would have twice crossed the Meuse, which is difficult to admit. We therefore adopt, as the site of the _oppidum_ of the Aduatuci, the citadel of Namur.

Another locality, Sautour, near Philippeville, would answer completely to Cæsar’s description, but the compass of Sautour, which includes only three hectares, is too small to have contained 60,000 individuals. The site of the citadel of Namur is already in our eyes very small.

[269] We translate _quindecim millium_ by 15,000 feet; the word _pedum_, employed in the preceding sentence, being understood in the text. When Cæsar intends to speak of _paces_, he almost always uses the word _passus_.

[270] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 33.

[271] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 35.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 20.--Cicero, _Epist. Famil._, I. 9, 17, 18.

[272] This passage has generally been wrongly interpreted. The text has, _Quæ civitates propinquæ his locis erant ubi bellum gesserat_. (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 35.) We must add the name of Crassus, overlooked by the copyists; for if Anjou and Touraine are near Brittany and Normandy, where Crassus had been fighting, they are very far from the Sambre and the Meuse, where Cæsar had carried the war.

[273] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 6

[274] Some manuscripts read _Esuvios_, but we adopt _Unellos_, because the geographical position of the country of the Unelli agrees better with the relation of the campaign.

[275] They leagued with the Osismii (_the people of the department of Finistère_), the Lexovii (_department of Calvados_), the Namnetes (_Loire-Inférieure_), the Ambiliates (_on the left bank of the Loire, to the south of Angers_), the Morini (_the Boulonnais and bishopric of Saint-Omer_), the Diablintes (_Western Maine_), and the Menapii (_between the Rhine and the mouths of the Scheldt_). (_De Bello Gallico_, III. 9.)

[276] Orosius (VI. 8) confirms this fact as stated in the Commentaries.

[277] “The Veneti fought at sea against Cæsar; they had made their dispositions to prevent his passage, into the isle of Britain, because they were in possession of the commerce of that country.” (Strabo, IV. iv., p. 162, edit. Didot.)

[278] We must not confound him with M. Junius Brutus, the assassin of Cæsar. Decimus Junius Brutus was the adopted son of A. Postumius Albinus. (See Drumann, IV. 9, and _Appendix D_.)

[279] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 40.

[280] We suppose, in this enumeration, that the legion of Galba, cantoned the preceding winter among the Allobroges, had rejoined the army.

[281] I borrow this interpretation of the Roman works from the very instructive book of General de Gœler.

[282] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 13.--Strabo, IV., p. 162.

[283] The fleet of the Veneti, superior to that of the Romans in number, in the magnitude of their vessels, and in their rigging and sails, must have issued from the river Auray by the Morbihan entrance to the gulf, and met Brutus to fight him, instead of waiting for him at the head of the bay, where retreat would be impossible. This follows from Cæsar’s account: _ex portu profectæ, nostris adversæ constiterunt_. According to the memoir by M. le Comte de Grandpré, a post-captain, inserted in the _Recueil de la Société des Antiquaires de France_, tom. II., 1820, the wind must have been east or north-east, for it was towards the end of the summer. It appears that these winds usually prevail at that period, and that, when they have blown during the morning, there is a dead calm towards the middle of the day: it is just what happened in this combat; the calm came, probably, towards midday. It was necessary, indeed, that the wind should be between the north and the east, to allow, on one hand the Roman fleet to leave the Loire and sail towards the Point Saint-Jacques, and, on the other, to permit the fleet of the Veneti to quit the river Auray. These latter, in this position, could, in case of defeat, take refuge in the Bay of Quiberon, or fly to the open sea, where the Romans would not have dared to follow them.

With winds blowing from below, it matters not from what point, the Romans could not have gone in search of their enemies, or the latter come to meet them. Supposing that, in one tide, the Roman fleet had arrived at the mouth of the Loire towards five o’clock in the morning; it might have been towards ten o’clock, the moment when the battle commenced, between Haedik and Sarzeau. Supposing similarly that, as early as five o’clock in the morning, the movement of the Roman fleet had been announced to the Veneti, they could, in five hours, have issued from the river Auray, defiled by the entrance of the Morbihan, rallied and advanced in order of battle to meet the Romans in the part of the sea above described.

As to the place where Cæsar encamped, it is very probable, as we have said, that it was on the heights of Saint-Gildas; for from thence he could see the dispositions of the enemy, and perceive far off the approach of his fleet. In case of check, the Roman galleys found, under his protection, a place of refuge in the Vilaine. Thus, he had his rear secured; rested upon the towns of the coast which he had taken; could recall to him, if necessary, Titurius Sabinus; and lastly, could cross the Vilaine, to place that river between him and his enemies. Placed, on the contrary, on the other side of the Bay of Quiberon, he would have been too much enclosed in an enemy’s country, and would have had none of the advantages offered by the position of Saint-Gildas.

[284] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 41.

[285] We see, in fact, in Vegetius, that the word _falces_ was applied to the head of a battering ram, armed with a point, and with a hook to detach the stones from the walls. “Quæ (trabes) aut adunco præfigitur ferro, et falx vocatur ab eo quod incurva est, ut de muro extrahat lapides.” (Vegetius, IV. 14.)

[286] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 17.

[287] This position is at the distance of seven kilomètres to the east of Avranches. The vestiges still visible of Chastellier are probably those of a camp made at a later period than this Gallic war, but we think that Sabinus had established his camp on the same site.

[288] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 19.

[289] Cæsar, after having said, in the first book of his “Commentaries”, that Aquitaine was one of the three parts of Gaul, states here that it formed the third part by its extent and population, which is not correct.

[290] Nicholas of Damascus (in _Athenæus, Deipn._, VI. 249) writes in this manner the name of King _Adiatomus_, and adds that the _soldurii_ were clothed in royal vestments.

[291] This combat is remarkable as being the only one in the whole war in Gaul in which the Romans attack a fortified Gaulish camp.

[292] Of this number were the Tarbelli, The Bigerriones, The Ptiani, the Vasates, the Tarusates, the Elusates, the Gaites, the Ausci, the Garumni, the Sibusates, and the Cocosates.

[293] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 27.

[294] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, III. x. 6.

[295] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 44.

[296] Cæsar never entirely subjugated the north-west of Gaul. (See Sallust, cited by Ammianus Marcellinus, XV., 15.) Still, under the reign of Augustus, in 724 and 726, there were triumphs over the Morini.

[297] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 29.

[298] “In praetura, in consulatu præfectum fabrum detulit.” (Cicero, _Orat. pro Balbo_, 28.)

[299] Mamurra, a Roman knight, born at Formiæ. (Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXXVI. 7.)

[300] From Xanten to Nimeguen, for a length of fifty kilomètres, extends a line of heights which form a barrier along the left bank of the Rhine. All appearances would lead us to believe that the river flowed, in Cæsar’s time, close at the foot of these heights; but now it has removed from them, and at Emmerich, for instance, is at a distance of eight kilomètres. This chain, the eastern slope of which is scarped, presents only two passes; one by a large opening at Xanten itself, to the north of the mountain called the Furstenberg; the other by a gorge of easy access, opening at Qualburg, near Cleves. These two passes were so well defined as the entries to Gaul in these regions, that, after the conquest, the Romans closed them by fortifying the Furstenberg (_Castra vetera_), and founding, on the two islands formed by the Rhine opposite these entries, _Colonia Trajana_, now Xanten, and _Quadriburgium_, now _Qualburg_. The existence of these isles facilitated at that time the passage of the Rhine, and, in all probability, it was opposite these two localities just named that the Usipetes and Tencteri crossed the river to penetrate into Gaul.

[301] The account of this campaign is very obscure in the “Commentaries.” Florus and Dio Cassius add to the obscurities: the first, by placing the scene of the defeat of the Usipetes and Tencteri towards the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine; the second, by writing that Cæsar came up with the Germans in the country of the Treviri. Several authors have given to the account of these two historians more credit than to that of Cæsar himself, and they give of this campaign an explanation quite different from ours. General de Gœler, among others, supposes that the whole emigration of the Germans had advanced as far as the country of the Condrusi, where Cæsar came up with them, and that he had driven them from west to east, into the angle formed by the Moselle and the Rhine. From researches which were kindly undertaken by M. de Cohausen, major in the Prussian army, and which have given the same result as those of MM. Stoffel and De Locqueyssie, we consider this explanation of the campaign as inadmissible. It would be enough, to justify this assertion, to consider that the country situated between the Meuse and the Rhine, to the south of Aix-la-Chapelle, is too much broken and too barren to have allowed the German emigration, composed of 430,000 individuals, men, women, and children, with wagons, to move and subsist in it. Moreover, it contains no trace of ancient roads; and if Cæsar had taken this direction, he must necessarily have crossed the forest of the Ardennes, a circumstance of which he would not have failed to inform us. Besides, is it not more probable that, on the news of the approach of Cæsar, instead of directing their march towards the Ubii, who were not favourable to them, the Germans, at first spread over a vast territory, would have concentrated themselves towards the most distant part of the fertile country on which they had seized--that of the Menapii?

[302] The Ambivariti were established on the left bank of the Meuse, to the west of Ruremonde, and to the south of the marshes of Peel.

[303] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 13.

[304] “Acie triplici instituta.” Some authors have translated these words by “the army was formed in three columns;” but Cæsar, operating in a country which was totally uncovered and flat, and aiming at surprising a great mass of enemies, must have marched in order of battle, which did not prevent each cohort from being in column.

[305] Attacked unexpectedly in the afternoon, while they were sleeping. (Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 48.)

[306] The study of the deserted beds of the Rhine leads us to believe that the confluence of the Waal and the Meuse, which is at present near Gorkum, was then much more to the east, towards Fort Saint-André. In that case, Cæsar made no mistake in reckoning eighty miles from the junction of the Waal and the Meuse to the mouth of the latter river.

[307] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 14, 15.

[308] The following reasons have led us to adopt Bonn as the point where Cæsar crossed the Rhine:--

We learn from the “Commentaries” that in 699 he debouched in the country of the Ubii, and that two years later it was a little above (_paulum supra_) the first bridge that he established another, which joined the territory of the Treviri with that of the Ubii. Now everything leads to the belief that, in the first passage as in the second, the bridge was thrown across between the frontiers of the same peoples; for we cannot admit, with some authors, that the words _paulum supra_ apply to a distance of several leagues. As to those who suppose that the passage was effected at Andernach, because, changing with Florus the Meuse (_Mosa_) into Moselle, they placed the scene of the defeat of the Germans at the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine, we have given the reasons for rejecting this opinion. We have endeavoured to prove, in fact, that the battle against the Usipetes and the Tencteri had for its theatre the confluence of the Meuse and the Rhine; and since, in crossing this latter river, Cæsar passed from the country of the Treviri into that of the Ubii, we must perceive that after his victory he must necessarily have proceeded up the valley of the Rhine to go from the territory of the Menapii to the Treviri, as far up as the territory of the Ubii, established on the right bank.

This being admitted, it remains to fix, within the limits assigned to these two last peoples, the most probable point of passage. Hitherto, Cologne has been adopted; but, to answer to the data of the “Commentaries,” Cologne appears to us to be much too far to the north. In fact, in the campaign of 701, Cæsar, having started from the banks of the Rhine, traversed the forest of the Ardennes from east to west, passed near the Segni and the Condrusi, since they implored him to spare their territory, and directed his march upon Tongres. If he had started from Cologne, he would not have crossed the countries in question. Moreover, in this same year, 2,000 Sicambrian cavalry crossed the Rhine thirty miles below the bridge of the Roman army. Now, if this bridge had been constructed at Cologne, the point of passage of the Sicambri, thirty miles below, would have been at a very great distance from Tongres, where, nevertheless, they seem to have arrived very quickly.

On the contrary, everything is explained if we adopt Bonn as the point of passage. To go from Bonn to Tongres, Cæsar proceeded, as the text has it, across the forest of the Ardennes; he passed through the country of the Segni and Condrusi, or very near them; and the Sicambri, crossing the Rhine thirty miles below Bonn, took the shortest line from the Rhine to Tongres. Moreover, we cannot place Cæsar’s point of passage either lower or higher than Bonn. Lower, that is, towards the north, the different incidents related in the “Commentaries” are without possible application to the theatre of the events; higher, towards the south, the Rhine flows upon a rocky bed, where the piles could not have been driven in, and presents, between the mountains which border it, no favourable point of passage. We may add that Cæsar would have been much too far removed from the country of the Sicambri, the chastisement of whom was the avowed motive of his expedition.

Another fact deserves to be taken into consideration: that, less than fifty years after Cæsar’s campaigns, Drusus, in order to proceed against the Sicambri--that is, against the same people whom Cæsar intended to combat--crossed the Rhine at Bonn. (Florus, IV. 12.)

[309] The following passage has given room for different interpretations:--

“Hæc utraque insuper bipedalibus trabibus immissis, quantum eorum tignorum junctura distabat, binis utrimque fibulis ab extrema parte distinebantur; quibus disclusis atque in contrariam partem revinctis, tanta erat operis firmitudo atque ea rerum natura, ut, quo major vis aquæ se incitavisset, hoc arctius illigata tenerentur.” (_De Bello Gallico_, IV. 17.)

It has not been hitherto observed that the words _hæc utraque_ relate to the two couples of one row of piles, and not to the two piles of the same couple. Moreover, the words _quibus disclusis_, &c., relate to these same two couples, and not, as has been supposed, to _fibulis_.

[310] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 20.

[311] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 4.

[312] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 13.

[313] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, IV. 30, § 16.

[314] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, IV. 30, § 16.--Tacitus, _Agricola_, 10.

[315] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.

[316] Strabo, IV., p. 199.

[317] _Agricola_, 12.

[318] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.

[319] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 13 and 14.

[320] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 20.

[321] _Annales_, XIV. 33.

[322] Although the greater number of manuscripts read _Cenimagni_, some authors have made two names of it, the _Iceni_ and the _Cangi_.

[323] The _Anderida Silva_, 120 miles in length by 30 in breadth, extended over the counties of Sussex and Kent, in what is now called the _Weald_. (See Camden, _Britannia_, edit. Gibson, I., col. 151, 195, 258, edit. of 1753.)

[324] Diodorus Siculus, V. 21.--Tacitus, _Agricola_, 12.

[325] IV., p. 200.

[326] _Agricola_, 11.

[327] Diodorus Siculus, V. 21.

[328] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 21.

[329] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.

[330] Strabo, IV., p. 200.

[331] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.

[332] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXII. 1.

[333] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.

[334] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22.

[335] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22.--Strabo, IV., p. 200.

[336] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.

[337] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 13.

[338] _Agricola_, 11.

[339] Strabo, IV., p. 199.

[340] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.

[341] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22.

[342] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, IV. 30, § 16.

[343] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 36.

[344] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 16.

[345] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 12.

[346] Frontinus, _Stratagm._, II. 3, 18.--Diodorus Siculus, V. 21.--Strabo, IV., p. 200.

[347] The account on page 213 confirms this interpretation, which is conformable to that of General Gœler.

[348] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 32 and 33.

[349] Strabo, IV., p. 200.

[350] Strabo, IV., p. 201.

[351] From what will be seen further on, each transport ship, on its return, contained 150 men. Eighty ships could thus transport 12,000 men, but since, reduced to sixty-eight, they were enough to carry back the whole army to the continent, they can only have carried 10,200 men, which was probably the effective force of the two legions. The eighteen ships appropriated to the cavalry might transport 450 horses, at the rate of twenty-five horses each ship.

[352] The port of Dover extended formerly from the site of the present town, between the cliffs which border the valley of the Dour or of Charlton. (_See Plate 17._) Indeed, from the facts furnished by ancient authors, and a geological examination of the ground, it appears certain that once the sea penetrated into the land, and formed a creek which occupied nearly the whole of the valley of Charlton. The words of Cæsar are just justified: “Cujus loci hæc erat natura, atque ita montibus angustis mare continebatur, uti ex locis superioribus in littus telum adjici posset.” (IV. 23.)

The proofs of the above assertion result from several facts related in different notices on the town of Dover. It is there said that in 1784 Sir Thomas Hyde Page caused a shaft to be sunk at a hundred yards from the shore, to ascertain the depth of the basin at a remote period; it proved that the ancient bed of the sea had been formerly thirty English feet below the present level of the high tide. In 1826, in sinking a well at a place called _Dolphin Lane_, they found, at a depth of twenty-one feet, a bed of mud resembling that of the present port, mixed with the bones of animals and fragments of leaves and roots. Similar detritus have been discovered in several parts of the valley. An ancient chronicler, named Darell, relates that “Wilbred, King of Kent, built in 700 the church of St. Martin, the ruins of which are still visible near the market-place, on the spot where formerly ships cast anchor.”

The town built under the Emperors Adrian and Septimus Severus occupied a part of the port, which had already been covered with sand; yet the sea still entered a considerable distance inland. (_See Plate 17._)