Chapter VI (3)

After the murder of Gallienus (268), perhaps on the news of it, the barbarians, again led by the Heruli, but this time with united forces, undertook an assault on the imperial frontier, such as there had not been hitherto, with a powerful fleet, and probably at the same time by land from the Danube.[145] The fleet had much to suffer from storms in the Propontis; then it divided, and the Goths advanced partly against Thessaly and Greece, partly against Crete and Rhodes; the chief mass resorted to Macedonia and thence penetrated into the interior, beyond doubt in combination with the bands that had marched into Thrace. But the emperor Claudius, who marched up in person with a strong force, brought relief at length to the Thessalonians oft besieged but now reduced to extremity; he drove the Goths before him up the valley of the Axius (Vardar) and onward over the mountains to upper Moesia; after various conflicts, with changing fortune of war, he achieved here in the Morava valley near Naissus a brilliant victory, in which 50,000 of the enemy are said to have fallen. The Goths retired broken up, first in the direction towards Macedonia, then through Thrace to the Haemus, in order to put the Danube between themselves and the enemy. A quarrel in the Roman camp, this time between infantry and cavalry, had almost given them once more a respite; but, when it came to fighting, the cavalry could not bear to leave their comrades in the lurch, and so the united army was once more victorious. A severe pestilence, which raged in all the years of distress, but especially then in those regions, and above all in the armies, did great injury doubtless to the Romans--the emperor Claudius himself succumbed to it--but the great army of the Northmen was utterly extirpated, and the numerous captives were incorporated in the Roman armies or made serfs. The hydra of military revolutions, too, was in some measure subdued; Claudius, and after him Aurelian, were masters in the empire after another fashion than could be said of Gallienus. The renewal of the fleet, towards which a beginning had been made under Gallienus, would not be wanting. The Dacia of Trajan was, and remained, lost; Aurelian withdrew the posts still holding out there, and gave to the possessors dislodged or inclined for emigration new dwellings on the Moesian bank. But Thrace and Moesia, which for a time had belonged more to the Goths than to the Romans, returned under Roman rule, and at least the frontier of the Danube was once more fortified.

[Sidenote: Character of the Gothic wars.]

We may not assign to these Gothic and Scythian expeditions by land and by sea, which fill up the twenty years 250-269, such significance, as if the hordes moving forth had been minded to take permanent possession of the countries which they traversed. Such a plan cannot be shown to have existed even for Moesia and Thrace, to say nothing of the more remote coasts; hardly, moreover, were the assailants numerous enough to undertake invasions proper. As the bad government of the last rulers, and above all the untrustworthiness of the troops, far more than the superior power of the barbarians, called forth the flooding of the territory by land and sea robbers, so the re-establishment of internal order and the energetic demeanour of the government of themselves brought its deliverance. The Roman state could not yet be broken if it did not break itself. But still it was a great work to rally the government again as Claudius had done it. We know somewhat less even of him than of most regents of this time, as the probably fictitious carrying back of the Constantinian pedigree to him has repainted his portrait after the tame pattern of perfection; but this very association, as well as the numberless coins struck in his honour after his death, show that he was regarded by the next generation as the deliverer of the state, and in this it cannot have been mistaken. These Scythian expeditions were at all events a prelude of the later migration of peoples; and the destruction of cities, which distinguishes them from the ordinary piratic voyages, took place at that time to such an extent that the prosperity as well as the culture of Greece and Asia Minor never recovered from it.

[Sidenote: The Danubian wars to the end of the 3d century.]

On the re-established frontier of the Danube Aurelian consolidated the victory achieved, inasmuch as he conducted the defensive once more offensively, and, crossing the Danube at its mouth, defeated beyond it not only the Carpi, who thenceforth stood in client-relation to the Romans, but also the Goths under king Canabaudes. His successor Probus took, as was already stated, the remains of the Bastarnae, hard pressed by the Goths, over to the Roman bank, just as Diocletian in the year 295 took the remnant of the Carpi. This points to the fact that beyond the river the empire of the Goths was consolidating; but they came no further. The border-fortresses were reinforced; counter-Aquincum (_contra Aquincum_, Pesth) was constructed in the year 294. The piratic expeditions did not entirely disappear. Under Tacitus hordes from the Maeotis appeared in Cilicia. The Franks, whom Probus had settled on the Black Sea, procured for themselves vessels, and sailed home to their North Sea, after plundering by the way on the Sicilian and African coasts. By land, too, there was no cessation of arms, as indeed all the numerous Sarmatian victories of Diocletian, and a part of his Germanic, would fall to the regions of the Danube; but it was only under Constantine that matters again came to a serious war with the Goths, which had a successful issue. The preponderance of Rome was re-established after the Gothic victory of Claudius as firmly as before.

[Sidenote: Illyrising of the military force and of the government.]

The war-history which we have just unfolded did not fail to react with general and lasting effect upon the internal organisation of the Roman political and military system. It has already been pointed out that the corps of the Rhine, holding in the early imperial period the leading position in the army, yielded their primacy already under Trajan to the legions of the Danube. While under Augustus six legions were stationed in the region of the Danube and eight in that of the Rhine, after the Dacian wars of Domitian and Trajan in the second century the Rhine-camps numbered only four, the camps of the Danube ten, and after the Marcomanian war even twelve, legions. Inasmuch as since Hadrian's time the Italian element, apart from the officers, had disappeared from the army, and, taken on the whole, every regiment was recruited in the district in which it was quartered, the most of the soldiers of the Danubian army, and not less the centurions who rose from the ranks, were natives of Pannonia, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace. The new legions formed under Marcus proceeded from Illyricum, and the extraordinary supplemental levies which the troops then needed were probably likewise taken chiefly from the districts in which the armies were stationed. Thus the primacy of the Danubian armies, which the war of the three emperors in the time of Severus established and increased, was at the same time a primacy of Illyrian soldiers; and this reached a very emphatic expression in the reform of the guard under Severus. This primacy did not, properly speaking, affect the higher spheres of government, so long as the position of officer still coincided with that of imperial official, although the equestrian career was accessible to the common soldier through the intervening link of the centurionate at all times, and thus the Illyrians early found their way into that career; as indeed, already, in the year 235, a native Thracian, Gaius Julius Varus Maximinus, in the year 248 a native Pannonian, Trajanus Decius, had in this way attained even to the purple. But when Gallienus, in a distrust certainly but too well justified, excluded the class of senators from serving as officers, what had hitherto held good as to the soldiers became necessarily extended to the officers also. It was thus simply a matter of course that the soldiers belonging to the army of the Danube, and mostly springing from Illyrian districts, played thenceforth the first part also in government, and, so far as the army made the emperors, these were likewise as to the majority Illyrians. Thus Gallienus was followed by Claudius the Dardanian, Aurelianus from Moesia, Probus from Pannonia, Diocletianus from Dalmatia, Maximianus from Pannonia, Constantius from Dardania, Galerius from Serdica; as to the last named, an author writing under the Constantinian dynasty brings into prominence their descent from Illyricum, and adds that they, with little culture but good preliminary training by labour in the field and service in war, had been excellent rulers. Such service as the Albanians for a long time rendered to the Turkish empire, their predecessors likewise rendered to the Roman imperial state, when this had arrived at similar disorder and similar barbarism. Only, the Illyrian regeneration of the Roman imperial order may not be conceived of as a national reorganisation; it was simply the propping up, by soldiers, of an empire utterly reduced through the misgovernment of rulers of gentler birth. Italy had wholly ceased to be military; and history does not acknowledge the ruler's right without the warrior's power.

Footnotes.

[118: The baptistery is perhaps the tomb of the emperor.]

[119: That there were no legions stationed on the Danube itself in the year 50, follows from Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 29; otherwise it would not have been necessary to send a legion thither to receive the accession of the Suebi. The laying out also of the Claudian Savaria suits better, if the town was then Norican, than if it already belonged to Pannonia; and, as the assignment of this town to Pannonia coincides certainly as to time with the like severance of Carnuntum and with the transference of the legion thither, all this may probably have taken place only in the period after Claudius. The small number also of inscriptions of Italici found in the camps of the Danube (_Eph. Ep._ v. p. 225) points to their later origin. Certainly there have been found in Carnuntum some epitaphs of soldiers of the 15th legion which, from their outward form and from the absence of cognomen, appear to be older (Hirschfeld, _Arch. Epigraph. Mittheilungen_, v. 217). Such determinations of date cannot claim full certainty, where a decade is concerned; nevertheless it must be conceded that the former arguments also furnish no full proofs, and the translocation may have begun earlier, possibly under Nero. For the construction or extension of this camp by Vespasian we have the evidence of the inscription, attesting such a structure, of Carnuntum, dating from the year 73 (Hirschfeld, _l.c._).]

[120: We know whole sets of Thracian, Getic, Dacian names of places and persons. Remarkable in a linguistic point of view is a group of personal names compounded with _-centhus_: _Bithicenthus_, _Zipacenthus_, _Disacenthus_, _Tracicenthus_, _Linicenthus_ (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ vi. 179), of which the first two also frequently occur isolated in their other half (_Bithus_, _Zipa_). A similar group is formed by the compounds with _-poris_, such as _Mucaporis_ (as Thracian, _Bull._ _l.c._, as Dacian in numerous cases), _Cetriporis_, _Rhaskyporis_, _Bithoporis_, _Dirdiporis_.]

[121: Tacitus, _Ann._ ii. 64, says this expressly. Of free Thracians, viewed from the Roman stand-point, there were at that time none; but the Thracian mountains, and especially the Rhodope of the Bessi, maintained even in the state of peace an attitude as regards the princes installed by Rome, that could hardly be designated as subjection; they acknowledged the king doubtless, but obeyed him, as Tacitus says (_l.c._ and iv. 46, 51), only when it suited them.]

[122: We have still a Greek epigram, dedicated to Cotys by Antipater of Thessalonica (_Anthol. Planud._ iv. 75), the same poet who celebrated also the conqueror of the Thracians, Piso (p. 24), and a Latin epistle in verse addressed to Cotys by Ovid (_ex Ponto_, ii. 9).]

[123: It is one of the most seriously felt blanks of the Roman imperial history that the standing quarters of the two legions, which formed under the Julio-Claudian emperors the garrison of Moesia, the 4th Scythica and the 5th Macedonica (at least these were stationed there in the year 33; _C. I. L._ iii. 1698) cannot hitherto be pointed out with certainty. Probably they were Viminacium and Singidunum in what was afterwards upper Moesia. Among the legion-camps of lower Moesia, of which that of Troesmis in particular has numerous monuments to show, none appear to be older than Hadrian's time; the remains of the upper-Moesian are hitherto so scanty that they at least do not hinder our carrying back their origin a century further. When the king of Thrace in the year 18 takes arms against the Bastarnae and Scythians (Tacitus, _Ann._ ii. 65), this could not have been put forward even as a pretext, had lower-Moesian legionary camps been already at that time in existence. This very narrative shows that the warlike power of this vassal-prince was not inconsiderable, and that the setting aside of an uncompliant king of Thrace demanded caution.]

[124: That the _regnum Vannianum_ (Plin. _H. N._ iv. 12, 81), the Suebian state (Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 29; _Hist._ iii. 5, 21), must be referred, not merely, as might appear from Tacitus, _Ann._ ii. 63, to the dwellings of the people that went over with Maroboduus and Catualda, but to the whole territory of the Marcomani and Quadi, is shown clearly by the second report, _Ann._ xii. 29, 30, since here, as opponents of Vannius alongside of his own insurgent subjects, there appear the peoples bordering on Bohemia to the west and north, the Hermunduri and Lugii. As boundary towards the east Pliny _l.c._ designates the region of Carnuntum (_Germanorum ibi confinium_) more exactly the river Marus or Duria, which separates the Suebi and the _regnum Vannianum_ from their eastern neighbours, whether we may refer the _dirimens eos_ with Müllenhoff (_Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie_ 1883, p. 871) to the Jazyges, or, as is more natural, to the Bastarnae. In reality both doubtless bordered, the Jazyges on the south, the Bastarnae on the north, with the Quadi of the March valley. Accordingly the Marus is the March, and the demarcation is formed by the small Carpathians that stretch between the March and the Waag. If thus those retainers were settled _inter flumen Marum et Cusum_, then the Cusus not elsewhere mentioned is, provided the statement is correct, not the Waag, or even, as Müllenhoff supposed, the Eipel falling into the Danube below Gran, but an affluent of the Danube westward of the March, perhaps the Gusen near Linz. The narrative in Tacitus xii. 29, 30, also requires the territory of Vannius to have reached to the west even beyond the March. The subscription to the first book of the _Meditations_ of the emperor Marcus ἐν Κουάδοις πρὸς τῷ Γρανούᾳ, proves doubtless that then the state of the Quadi stretched as far as the river Gran; but this state is not coincident with the _regnum Vannianum_.]

[125: _Regibus Bastarnarum et Roxolanorum filios, Dacorum fratrum captos aut hostibus ereptos remisit_ (Orelli, 750) is miswritten; it must run _fratres_, or at any rate _fratrum filios_. In like manner afterwards _per quae_ is to be read for _per quem_ and _rege_ instead of _regem_.]

[126: In Pannonia there were stationed about the year 70 two legions, the 13th Gemina and the 15th Apollinaris, in room of which latter during its participation in the Armenian war for some time the 7th Gemina came in (_C. I. L._ iii. p. 482). Of the two legions added later, 1st Adiutrix and 2d Adiutrix, the first still at the beginning of the reign of Trajan lay in upper Germany (p. 159, note 1), and can only have come to Pannonia under Trajan; the second stationed under Vespasian in Britain can only have come to Pannonia under Domitian (p. 174, note 4). The Moesian army numbered after the union with the Dalmatian under Vespasian probably but four legions, consequently as many as the two armies together previously--the later upper-Moesian, 4th Flavia and 7th Claudia, and the later lower-Moesian, 1st Italica and 5th Macedonica. The positions shifted by the marching to and fro of the year of the four emperors (Marquardt, _Staatsverw._ ii. 435), which temporarily brought these legions to Moesia, need not deceive us. The subsequent third lower-Moesian legion, the Eleventh, was still under Trajan stationed in upper Germany.]

[127: Josephus, _Bell. Iud._ vii. 4, 3: πλείοσι καὶ μείζοσι φυλακαῖς τὸν τόπον διέλαβεν ὡς εἶναι τοῖς βαρβάροις τὴν διάβασιν τελέως ἀδύνατον. By this seems meant the transference of the two Dalmatian legions to Moesia. Whither they were transferred we do not know. According to the Roman custom elsewhere it is more probable that they were stationed in the environs of the previous headquarters Viminacium than in the remote region of the mouths of the Danube. The camp there probably originated only at the division of the Moesian command and at the erection of the independent province of lower Moesia under Domitian.]

[128: The chronology of the Dacian war is involved in much uncertainty. That it had begun already before the war with the Chatti (83), we learn from the Carthaginian inscription (_C. I. L._ viii. 1082) of a soldier decorated three times by Domitian, in the Dacian, in the German, and again in the Dacian war. Eusebius puts the outbreak of the war, or rather the first great conflict, in the year Abr. 2101 or 2102 = A.D. 85 (more exactly 1 Oct. 84-30 Sept. 85) or 86, the triumph in the year 2106 = 90; these numbers indeed have no claim to complete trustworthiness. With some probability the triumph is placed in the year 89 (Henzen, _Acta Arval._ p. 116).]

[129: The fragment, Dio, lxvii. 7, 1, Dind., stands in the sequence of the Ursinian excerpts before lxvii. 5, 1, 2, 3, and belongs also in the order of events to a time before the negotiation with the Lugii. Comp. _Hermes_, iii. 115.]

[130: Arrian, _Tact._ 44, mentions among the changes which Hadrian introduced into the cavalry, that he allowed to the several divisions their national battle-cries: Κελτικοὺς μὲν τοῖς Κελτοῖς ἱππεῦσιν, Γετικοὺς δὲ τοῖς Γέταις, Ῥαιτικοὺς δὲ ὅσοι ἐκ Ῥαίτων.]

[131: The walls, which, three mètres in height and two mètres in thickness, with broad outer fosse and many remains of forts, stretch in two almost parallel lines, partly--to the length of ninety-four miles--from the left bank of the Pruth by way of Tabak and Tatarbunar to Dniester-Liman, between Akerman and the Black Sea; partly--to the length of sixty-two miles--from Leowa on the Pruth to the Dniester below Bendery (Petermann, _Geograph. Mittheilungen_, 1857, p. 129), may perhaps be also Roman; but there has not been as yet any exact settlement of this point.]

[132: According to von Vincke's estimate (_Monatsberichte über die Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde in Berlin_ in the years 1839-40, p. 197 f.; comp. in von Moltke's _Briefe über Zustände in der Turkei_, the letter of 2d Nov. 1837), as well as according to the delineations and plans of Dr. C. Schuchhardt communicated to me, three barriers were here constructed. The south-most and probably oldest is a simple earthen wall with (singularly) a fosse in front of it towards the south; whether of Roman origin may be doubtful. The two other lines are an earthen wall, even now at many places as high as three mètres, and a lower wall, once lined with stones, which often run close beside each other and elsewhere again are miles apart. We might hold them as the two lines of defence of a fortified road, though in the eastern half the earthen wall, in the more southern half the stone-wall, is the more northerly, and they cross in the middle. At one spot the earthen wall (here more southerly) forms the rear of a fort constructed behind the stone-wall. The earthen wall is covered on the north side by a deep, on the south side by a shallow, fosse; each fosse is closed off by a bank. A fosse lies also in front of the stone-wall to the north. Behind the earthen wall, and mostly resting on it, are found forts distant from each other seven hundred and fifty mètres; others at irregular distances of the like kind behind the stone-wall. All the lines keep behind the Karasu-lakes as the natural basis of defence; from the point where this ceases, they are carried as far as the sea with slight regard to the character of the ground. The town Tomis lies outside of the wall and to the north of it; but its fortress-walls are put in connection with the barrier-fortification by a special wall.]

[133: _Vita Hadriani_ 6: _cum rege Roxolanorum qui de imminutis stipendiis querebatur cognito negotio pacem composuit_.]

[134: _Vita Marci_ 14: _gentibus quae pulsae a superioribus barbaris fugerant nisi reciperentur bellum inferentibus_. Dio, in Petrus Patricius, _fr._ 6, says: Λαγγιβάρδων καὶ Ὀβίων (otherwise unknown) ἑξακισχιλίων Ἴστρον περαιωθέντων τῶν περὶ Βίνδικα (perhaps already then _praef. praetorio_, in which case the guard would be marched out on account of this occurrence), ἱππέων ἐξελασάντων καὶ τῶν ἀμφὶ Κάνδιδον πεζῶν ἐπιφθασάντων εἰς παντελῆ φυγήν οἱ βάρβαροι ἐτράποντο· ἐφ' οἷς οὗτω πραχθεῖσιν ἐν δέει καταστάντες ἐκ πρώτης ἐπιχειρήσεως οἱ βάρβαροι πρέσβεις παρὰ Αἴλιον Βάσσον τὴν Παιονίαν διέποντα στέλλουσι Βαλλομάριόν τε τὸν βασιλέα Μαρκομάνων καὶ ἑτέρους δέκα, κατ' ἔθνος ἐπιλεξάμενοι ἕνα· καὶ ὅρκοις τὴν εἰρήνην οἱ πρέσβεις πιστωσάμενοι οἴκαδε χωροῦσιν. That this incident falls before the outbreak of the war, is shown by its position; _fr._ 7 of Patricius is an excerpt from Dio, lxxi. 11, 2.]

[135: The Moesian army gave away soldiers to the Armenian war (Hirschfeld, _Arch. epig. Mitth._ vi. 41); but here the frontier was not endangered.]

[136: The participation of the Germans on the right of the Rhine is attested by Dio, lxxi. 3, and only thereby are the measures explained which Marcus adopted for Raetia and Noricum. The position of Oderzo also speaks for the view that these assailants came over the Brenner.]

[137: The alleged first mention of the Goths in the biography of Caracalla, c. 10, rests on a misunderstanding. If really a senator allowed himself the malicious jest of assigning to the murderer of Geta the name Geticus, because he on his march from the Danube to the east had conquered some Getic hordes (_tumultuariis proeliis_), he meant Dacians, not the Goths, scarcely at that time dwelling there and hardly known to the Roman public, whose identification with the Getae was certainly only a later invention.--We may add that the statement that the emperor Maximinus (235-238) was the son of a Goth settled in the neighbouring Thrace, carries us still further back; yet not much weight is to be attached to it.]

[138: Petrus Patricius _fr._ 8. The administration of the legate of lower Moesia here mentioned, Tullius Menophilus, is fixed by coins certainly to the time of Gordian, and with probability to 238-240 (Borghesi, _Opp._ ii. 227). As the beginning of the Gothic war and the destruction of Istros are fixed by Dexippus (_vita Max. et Balb._ 16) at 238, it is natural to bring into connection with these events the undertaking of tribute; at any rate it was then renewed. The vain sieges of Marcianopolis and Philippopolis by the Goths (Dexippus, _fr._ 18, 19) may have followed on the capture of Istros. Jordanes, _Get._ 16, 92, puts the former under Philippus, but is in chronological questions not a valid witness.]

[139: The reports of these occurrences in Zosimus, i. 21-24, Zonaras, xii. 20, Ammianus, xxxi. 5, 16, 17 (which accounts, down to that concerning Philippopolis, are fixed as belonging to this time by the fact that the latter recurs in Zosimus), although all fragmentary or in disorder, may have flowed from the report of Dexippus, of which _fr._ 16, 19, are preserved, and may be in some measure combined. The same source lies at the bottom of the imperial biographies and Jordanes; but both have disfigured and falsified it to such a degree that use can be made of their statements only with great caution. Victor, _Caes._ 29, is independent.]

[140: Perhaps the irruption of the Marcomani in Zosimus, i. 29, refers to this.]

[141: Ammianus, xxxi. 5, 15; _duobus navium milibus perrupto Bosporo et litoribus Propontidis Scythicarum gentium catervae transgressae ediderunt quidem acerbas terra marique strages: sed amissa suorum parte maxima reverterunt_; whereupon the catastrophe of the Decii is narrated, and into this is inwoven the further notice: _obsessae Pamphyliae civitates_ (to which must belong the siege of Side in Dexippus himself, fr. 23), _insulæ populatæ complures_, as also the siege of Cyzicus. If in this retrospect all is not confused--which cannot well be assumed to be the case with Ammianus--this falls before those naval expeditions which begin with the siege of Pityus, and are more a part of the migration of peoples than piratical raids. The number of the ships might indeed be transferred hither by error of memory from the expedition of the year 269. To the same connection belongs the notice in Zosimus, i. 28, as to the Scythian expeditions into Asia and Cappadocia as far as Ephesus and Pessinus. The account as to Ephesus in the biography of Gallienus, c. 6, is the same, but transposed as to time.]

[142: In the case of Zosimus himself we should not expect complete understanding of the matter; but his voucher Dexippus, who was a contemporary and took part in the matter, knew well why he termed the Bithynian expedition the δευτέρα ἔφοδος (Zos. i. 35); and even in Zosimus we discern clearly the contrast, intended by Dexippus, between the expedition of the Borani against Pityus and Trapezus and the traditional piratic voyages. In the biography of Gallienus the Scythian expedition to Cappadocia, narrated at c. 11, under the year 264, must be that to Trapezus, just as the Bithynian therewith connected must be that which Zosimus terms the second; here indeed everything is confused.]

[143: This is said by Zosimus, i. 42, and follows also from the relation of the Bosporans to the first (i. 32), and that of the first to the second expedition (i. 34).]

[144: The report of Dexippus as to this expedition is given in extract by Syncellus, p. 717 (where ἀνελόντος must be read for ἀνελόντες), Zosimus, i. 39, and the biographer of Gallienus, c. 13. _Fr._ 22 is a portion of his own narrative. In the continuator of Dio, on whom Zonaras depends, the event is placed under Claudius, through error or through falsification, which grudged this victory to Gallienus. The biography of Gallienus narrates the incident apparently twice, first shortly in c. 6 under the year 262; then better, under or after 265, in c. 13.]

[145: In our traditional accounts this expedition appears as a pure sea-voyage, undertaken with (probably) 2000 ships (so the biography of Claudius; the numbers 6000 and 900, between which the tradition in Zosimus, i. 42, wavers, are probably both corrupt) and 320,000 men. It is, however, far from credible that Dexippus, to whom these statements must be traced back, can have put the latter figure in this way. On the other hand, considering the direction of the expedition, in the first instance against Tomis and Marcianopolis, it is more than probable that in it the procedure described by Zos. i. 34 was followed, and a portion marched by land; and under this supposition even a contemporary might well estimate the number of assailants at that figure. The course of the campaign, particularly the place of the decisive battle, shows that they had by no means to do merely with a fleet.]