ancestors, was of the illustrious family of the Sulpicii; he descended
from Sulpicius Galba, consul in 610, who had left the reputation of a
great orator. S. Sulpicius Galba, Cæsar’s lieutenant in Gaul, had
already served in the war in that country under C. Pomptinus, in 693
(Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 48), which explains the choice made of him by the
future Dictator. He must have quitted Cæsar’s army at latest in 699, for
he was, at his recommendation, elected prætor in 700. (Dio Cassins,
XXXIX. 65.) He solicited the consulship in vain in 705. Pressed by the
creditors of Pompey, for whom he had made himself surety, he was
relieved from his difficulties by Cæsar, who paid his debts. (Valerius
Maximus, V. 2, §11.) Finding himself finally deceived in his hope of
arriving at the consulship, S. Galba joined the conspiracy against his
old chief. (Suetonius, _Galba_, 3.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 113.) He
served in the war against Antony, under the Consul Hirtius. We have a
letter from him to Cicero, written from the camp of Modena. (Cicero,
_Epist. Familiar_., X. 30.) Prosecuted, in virtue of the law Pedia, as a
murderer of Cæsar, (Suetonius, _Galba_, 3), he was condemned, and died
probably in exile.
The Senate granted Cæsar, in 608, ten lieutenants: Labienus, Arunculeius
Cotta, Titurias Sabinus, already in Gaul, Decimus Brutus, P. Sulpicius
Rufus, Munatius Plancus, M. Crassus, C. Fabius, L. Roscius, and T.
Sextius. As to Sulpicius Galba, P. Crassus, and Q. Pedius, they had
returned to Italy.
7. DECIMUS JUNIUS BRUTUS.
Decimus Junius Brutus, belonging to the family of the _Junii_, was son
of Decimus Junius Brutus, elected consul in the year 677, and of
Sempronia, who performed so celebrated a part in Catiline’s conspiracy.
He was adopted by A. Postumius Albinus, consul in 655, and took, for
this reason, the surname of Albinus, by which we find him sometimes
designated. When Cæsar took him into Gaul, he was still very young; the
“Commentaries” apply to him the epithet _adolescens_. He must have
returned to Rome in January, 704, since a letter of Cicero mentions his
presence there at that period. (_Epist. Familiar._, VIII. 7.) The year
following he commanded Cæsar’s fleet before Marseilles. (Cæsar, _De
Bello Civili_, I. 36.--Dio Cassius, XLI. 19.) He gained, although with
unequal forces, a naval victory over L. Domitius. (Cæsar, _De Bello
Civili_, II. 5.) Having received from Cæsar, in 706, the government of
Transalpine Gaul, he repressed, in 708, an insurrection of the
Bellovaci. (Titos Livius, _Epitome_, CXIV.) An object of the special
favours of his old general, who felt for him a warm affection, D.
Brutus, along with Antony and Octavius, was associated in the triumph
which Cæsar celebrated in 709, on his return from Spain, and mounted
with them on the car. (Plutarch, _Antony_, 13.) By his will of the Ides
of September, the Dictator named him one of the guardians of Octavius,
and made him one of his second heirs (Dio Cassius, XLIV. 35.--Appian,
_Civil Wars_, II, 143.--Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 83); he caused to be given
him, for the year 712, the government of Cisalpine Gaul. In spite of
this friendship, of which Cæsar had given him so many proofs, and which
the latter believed to be paid by a requital, Brutus, who had remained
faithful to his benefactor in the civil war, lent his ear to the
proposals of the conspirators, and yielded to the seductions of M.
Brutus, his kinsman. He not only went to the Senate to assist in
striking the victim, but he accepted the mission of going to persuade
the Dictator, who was hesitating, to repair to the curia. (Dio Cassius,
XLIV. 14, 18.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 115.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 70.)
Exposed to public hatred (Cicero, _Philippic._, X. 7), and intimidated
by the threats of Antony, he left Rome to go and take possession of the
province which Cæsar had caused to be assigned to him. (Cicero, _Epist.
ad Atticum_, XIV. 13.)
He appears, however, to have acted but feebly in favour of the party he
had embraced. Antony, having obtained from the people, in exchange for
Macedonia, the province commanded by Brutus (Appian, _Civil Wars_, III.
30), the latter refused to abandon his government, and, supported by
Cicero, he obtained from the Senate an edict maintaining him in it
(Cicero, _Philippic._, III. 4.--Appian, _Civil War_, III. 45), which led
to an armed contest between the two competitors. Pursued by his rival,
Brutus threw himself into Modena, and there sustained a long siege
(Appian, _Civil Wars_, III. 49.--Titus Livius, _Epitome_, CXVII), which
had for its final result the celebrated battle in which Antony was
defeated. D. Brutus, overlooked among new actors in this sanguinary
drama, remained in it almost a mere spectator. (Dio Cassius, XLVI. 40.)
He then ranged himself on the side of Octavius, yet without the
existence of any very close or very sincere intimacy between these two
men. He continued to exercise an important command during the war, but
fortune was not long in turning against him. Pressed by Antony, who had
united with Lepidus, and threatened personally by the prosecutions which
Octavius, armed with the law Pedia, was directing against the murderers
of Cæsar (Titus Livius, _Epitome_, CXX.--Dio Cassius, XLVI. 53), he
found himself deserted by his troops, and, after a vain attempt to cross
into Macedonia, he directed his steps with a small escort towards
Aquileia; but a Gaulish chief, named Camillus, betrayed towards him the
rites of hospitality, kept him prisoner, and sent information of what he
had done to Antony. The old lieutenant of Cæsar immediately sent Furius
with a party of cavalry, who slew Brutus, and carried away his head.
(Appian, _Civil Wars_, III. 97, 98.--Velleius Paterculus, III. 63, 64.)
Brutus was one of the correspondents of Cicero, who gives him praise,
especially for his constancy in friendship, of which he was certainly
little worthy.
8. PUBLIUS SULPICIUS RUFUS.
Publius Sulpicius Rufus, who belonged to the same family as S. Sulpicius
Galba, served, in 705, the cause of Cæsar in Spain (Cæsar, _De Bello
Civili_, I. 74); he commanded in the following year, with the title of
prætor, the fleet which was cruising at Vibo, on the coast of Bruttium
(Cæsar, _De Bella Civili_, III. 101); subsequently he obtained the
government of Illyria, a country where he had served in the ranks of the
Cæsarians, and consequently succeeded Q. Cornificius (Cæsar, _De Bello
Afric._, 10; _De Bello Alexandrin._, 42). A letter of Cicero, addressed
to him (_Epist. Familiar._, XIII. 77), shows that he was still in that
province in 709. We know nothing certain relating to his actions. It has
been supposed with probability that he is the same with a P. Sulpicius,
censor under the triumvirate, and mentioned in a Latin inscription
_(Tabula Collatina_), to which Drumann refers (tom. i., p. 528).
9. LUCIUS MUNATIUS PLANCUS.
Lucius Munatius Plancus, whose name is found in several inscriptions and
on a rather great number of medals (see especially Orelli,
_Inscriptions_, N. 591), belonged to an illustrious plebeian family.
Intimate at first with Cato, he subsequently gained the entire affection
of Cæsar (Plutarch, _Cato of Utica_, 42.--Cicero, _Epist. Familiar._, X.
24), and remained faithful to him to the last. After having served in
Gaul, he became, in 705, one of his most active lieutenants in Spain
(Cæsar, _De Bello Civili_, I. 40), and afterwards in Africa. (Cæsar, _De
Bello Afr._, 4.) Cæsar caused to be given to him, for the year 710, the
government of Transalpine Gaul, without the Narbonnese and Belgic Gaul
(Appian, _Civil Wars_, III. 46--Cicero, _Philipp._, III. 15), and named
him, with P. Brutus, for the consulship in 712 (Velleius Paterculus, II.
63.--Dio Cassius, XLVI. 53); he was then in great favour with the
Dictator: Cicero made his approaches through him to obtain Cæsar’s
favour. (_Epist. Familiar._, X. 3; XIII. 29.)
After the murder of Cæsar, Plancus, who no doubt, like Antony, feared
the vengeance of the party of the conspirators, proposed an amnesty, in
concert with him and Cicero (Plutarch, _Brutus_, 22), and hastened to go
into the province which had been assigned to him. In Gaul he founded the
colonies of Lugdunum and Raurica (Orelli, _Inscriptiones_, No. 590.--Dio
Cassius, XLVI. 50); subsequently, gained by Antony, he abandoned to his
vengeance, during the proscription, Plotius, his own brother. (Appian,
_Civil Wars_, IV. 12.--Valerias Maximus, VI. 8, § 5.) In 712, Plancus
took, with Lepidus, on the 1st of January, the consulship which Cæsar
had destined for him. (Dio Cassius, XLVI. 53; LXVII. 16.) In the war of
Perusia, he commanded the troops of Antony, who sent him, in 714, into
Asia. In 719 he still governed Syria for that triumvir, and he has been
accused of the death of Sextus Pompey. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, V. 144.)
He proceeded to Egypt with Antony, to the court of Cleopatra. (Velleius
Paterculus, II. 83.) Foreseeing the ruin of Antony, of whom he has been
reproached with being the base flatterer, he did not wait for the defeat
of Actium to embrace the party of Octavius: he returned to Rome, and
attacked his former friend bitterly in the Senate. (Velleius Paterculus,
II. 83.) Dio Cassius (L. 3) accuses him of having revealed Antony’s
will. From this time devoted to Octavius, he proposed, in 727, to confer
upon him the title of Augustus. (Suetonius, _Octavius_, 7.--Velleius
Paterculus, II. 91.) In 732, he held the office of censor. (Dio Cassias,
LIV. 2.) The inscriptions and medals show that he was also invested with
other dignities. The date of his death is unknown. Horace addressed to
him one of his odes. (Book I., Ode 7.)
10. MARCUS LICINIUS CRASSUS.
Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives was the elder brother of young Crassus,
whose place he had taken as Cæsar’s lieutenant in Gaul. Little is known
of his life. Cicero, less intimate with him than with his younger
brother, has mentioned him but slightly. (_Epist. Familiar._, 8.) He
ranged himself on Cæsar’s side at the time of the civil war, and became,
in 705, governor of Citerior Gaul. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, II.
41.--Justin, XLII. 4.) The time of his death is unknown.
11. CAIUS FABIUS.
It is not known what Caius Fabius had been before the campaign of Gaul.
When the civil war broke out, he remained faithful to Cæsar, who sent
him orders to proceed from Narbonnese Gaul to Spain. With his usual
rapidity, he moved by forced marches to Herda (_Herida_), near which
town Afranius was encamped. He distinguished himself in the whole of
this campaign, in which the army of Cæsar, which had joined him, was for
a moment in danger.
No further mention is made of C. Fabius. His name does not occur either
in the campaigns of Greece, Alexandria, or Africa, or in that of the
second Spanish war, or elsewhere.
12. L. ROSCIUS.
L. Roscius, who only played a secondary part in the war of Gaul, appears
to be the same as a personage to whom Cicero gives the name of _L.
Fabatus_, and who fell in the battle of Modena in 711. (_Epist.
Familiar._, X. 33.) He was prætor in 705, and Pompey, who knew the
friendship which Cæsar had for Roscius, deputed him to him at Ariminum
with proposals of peace. (Cæsar, _De Bello Civili_, I. 8, 10.--Dio
Cassius, XLI 5.) It is believed that it is his name which, followed by
the surname Fabatus, figures on the Roman denarii which bear the image
of Juno Lanuvina. It is also believed to occur in a Latin inscription.
13. TITUS SEXTIUS.
Titus Sextius, whose history before his arrival in Gaul is not known,
became, in 710, governor of Numidia. (Dio Cassius, XLVIII. 21.)
According to Appian (_Civil Wars_, IV. 53), he took the side of
Octavius; according to Dio Cassius (XLVIII. 21), that of Antony. He made
war against Q. Cornificius, who sought to keep the ancient province of
Africa, which the Senate had given him. Sextius aspired to the same
government, and prepared to exercise it for Octavius, to whom Africa had
been assigned in the partition of the triumvirs. (Appian, _Civil Wars_,
IV. 53.) The defeat and death of Cornificius allowed him to realise his
projects, and he remained in possession of his province until 713.
Appian and Dio Cassius have told differently the events which forced
Sextius, after the battle of Philippi, to abandon Numidia, where
Octavius had sent a new governor. Nothing else is known of his
biography.
In the year 700 two new lieutenants make their appearance, Q. Tullius
Cicero and C. Trebonius, who came to replace Arunculeius Cotta and
Titurius Sabinus, slain by the Gauls at Tongres.
14. Q. TULLIUS CICERO.
Quintus Tullius Cicero, younger brother of the great orator, was born in
652, and went with him to Athens, in order to perfect himself in
literature, which he cultivated with success. The correspondence of the
two brothers which has been preserved is a proof of this, and we know,
from other sources, that Quintus had composed divers works which are
lost. Quintas had married, before the year 686, Pomponia, sister of
Atticus (Cicero, _Epist. ad Atticum_, I. 5, 6), with whom he lived on
bad terms, and from whom he finally separated. He was ædile in 688, the
year of his brother’s prætorship; and in 691, when his brother was
consul, he lent him in the affair of Catiline his intelligent support,
and shared the same dangers. (Cicero, _Epist. ad Quintum_, I. 1;
_Catilinaria Quarta_, 2, 3.) However, he did not share in his opinion in
the judgment of the conspirators, when he voted, with Cæsar, against the
punishment of death. (Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 14.) He became prætor in 692,
defeated in Bruttium the bands of the Catilinarian Marcellus (Orosius,
VI. 6), and presided over the tribunal which judged Archias. (_Scholiast
of Bobbio on the Oration for Archias_, p. 354, edit. Orelli.) In March
of the year 693, he proceeded to the province of Asia, of which he had
obtained the government (Cicero, _Pro Flacco_, 14); he administered that
province with as much equity as talent, seconded by able lieutenants.
(Cicero, _Epist. ad Quintum_, I. 1.) They had, however, to reproach him
with frequent fits of anger, which drew upon him the remonstrances of
his brother. At the end of April, 696, Quintus left Asia in order to
proceed direct to Rome, without taking time to visit at Thessalonica M.
Cicero, who was still under the weight of his condemnation to exile. The
fact was, he feared an accusation of extortion, which his enemies, and
those of his brother, endeavoured to prepare against him. (Cicero,
_Epist. ad Atticum_, III. 9; _Epist. ad Quintum_, I. 3; _Oratio pro Domo
sua_, 36.) He employed himself actively in favour of his brother, and
narrowly escaped being killed in the riot raised by Clodius, on the 8th
of the Calends of February, 697, on the occasion of the proposition of
the tribune Fabricius. (Cicero, _Oratio pro Sextio_, 35.--Plutarch,
_Cicero_, 44.) When this same Clodius opposed the rebuilding of the
house of M. Cicero, Quintus saw his own, which was next to that of his
brother, burnt by the partisans of that turbulent demagogue. (Cicero,
_Epist. ad Atticum_, IV. 3.) Towards the end of the same year, Quintus
was one of the fifteen lieutenants given to Pompey in order to direct
the supplying of victuals, and in that quality he proceeded to Sardinia.
(Cicero, _Epist. ad Quintum_, II. 2.) He started for Gaul in the
beginning of 700, and it appears from a passage in the _Oratio pro
Milone_ that he was still there in 702. He left Cæsar’s army in 703, and
joined, in the quality of legate, his brother, who had been made
proconsul of Cilicia, and to whom he lent the indispensable support of
his experience and ability in matters of war. (Cicero, _Epist.
Familiar_., XV. 4; _Epist. ad Atticum_, V, 20.) During the civil war,
Quintus took the side of Pompey, but he imitated his brother’s
circumspection, and, after the battle of Pharsalia, he made every effort
to clear himself in the eyes of Cæsar, to whom he sent as his deputy in
Asia his own son, and thus obtained his pardon. After the death of
Cæsar, Quintus pronounced energetically, like M. Cicero, against Antony,
an opposition which turned out equally fatal to him, for, like his
brother, he was comprised in the proscription. Having vainly attempted
with him to reach Macedonia, he returned to Rome accompanied by his son,
and both were delivered up by slaves to the executioner. (Appian, _Civil
Wars_, IV. 20.--Plutarch, _Cicero_, 62.)
15. CAIUS TREBONIUS.
Caius Trebonius was the son of a Roman knight, of whom Cicero speaks in
his _Philippica_ (XIII. 10). Being quæstor in 694, he opposed the law
Herennia, which authorised the adoption of Clodius by a plebeian; as
tribune of the people in 699, he proposed the celebrated laws which gave
to Pompey and Crassus important provinces, and continued for five years
Cæsar’s command in Gaul. Having been called by Cæsar the year after in
quality of legate, he remained in Gaul until the commencement of the
civil war. He was afterwards sent to Spain against Afranius, and next
charged with the siege of Marseilles by land. (Cæsar, _De Bello Civili_,
I. 36.--Dio Cassius, XLI. 19;) In 706, he became præter urbanus (Dio
Cassius, XLII. 20); a year later he succeeded Cassius Longinus in the
government of one of the two Spains. (Cæsar, _De Bello Alexandrino_, 64;
_De Bello Hispano_, 7.--Dio Cassius, XLIII. 29.) Compelled to leave the
Peninsula, after some checks, he returned to Rome, where Cæsar caused
him to be named consul in October, 709, and with the province of Asia,
on quitting office. (Dio Cassius, XLIII. 46.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, III.
2.) All these acts of kindness, however, could not secure to the
dictator the devotedness of his lieutenant: even before Trebonius had
taken possession of his proconsulate of Asia, he entered into the
conspiracy formed against the life of Cæsar. But, detained by Antony
outside the curia, he could not strike him with his own hand. (Appian,
_Civil Wars_, II. 117.--Dio Cassius, XLIV. 19.--Cicero, _Philippica_,
II. 14; XIII. 10.) After the death of Cæsar, Trebonius started quietly
for his government of Asia, and was in May, 710, at Athens. (Cicero,
_Epist. Familiar_., XII. 16.) During his proconsulship he supported the
party of Brutus and Cassius. In February, 711, Dolabella, who had come
to replace him, drew him into a snare at Smyrna; slew him, and threw his
head at the foot of a statue of Cæsar, thus revenging his friend who had
been so shamefully betrayed. (Cicero, _Philippica_, XIII. 10.--Appian,
_Civil Wars_, III. 26.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 69.--Dio Cassius,
XLVII. 29.) Cicero, whose correspondent Trebonius had been, stigmatises
this murder, in which Antony saw the just punishment of a villain and a
parricide. It is certain that Trebonius had entered the conspiracy
without remorse, since afterwards he wrote to Cicero: “If you compose
anything on the murder of Cæsar, do not attribute a small part of it to
me.” (Cicero, _Epist. Familiar._, XII. 16.)
During the years 701 to 705 new lieutenants joined Cæsar in Gaul: they
were Minucius Basilus, Antistius Reginus, M. Silanus, Caninius Rebilus,
Sempronius Rutilus, Marcus Antonius, P. Vatinius, Q. Calenus, and Lucius
Cæsar.
16. MINUCIUS BASILUS.
L. Minucius Basilus had taken his name and surname from a rich Roman who
had adopted him. Previously his name was L. Satrius. Cicero names him
thus in one of his treatises (_De Officiis_, III. 18), although
elsewhere (_Epist. ad Atticum_, XI. 5) he designates him by his name and
surname. He became prætor in 709. (Dio Cassius, XLIII. 47.) Irritated at
not having obtained, on leaving office, the province which he coveted,
and at having only received money from Cæsar, he entered into the
conspiracy formed against the Dictator. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, II;
113.--Dio Cassius, XLIII. 47.) A few months after, he was assassinated
by his slaves, who thus took revenge for his having subjected several of
them to the punishment of castration. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, III. 98.)
17. C. ANTISTIUS REGINUS.
Nothing is known of the antecedents or the end of this lieutenant of
Cæsar. To judge by his name, he must have belonged to the family of the
_Antistii_, which produced divers magistrates of the Republic, and
several members of which have perpetuated their memory in inscriptions.
18. M. SILANUS.
Marcus Junius Silanus, son of Servilia, was brother, by the mother’s
side, to M. Brutus. After the murder of Cæsar, he accompanied his
brother-in-law Lepidus in his campaign in the north of Italy, and was
sent by him, in 711, to Modena, without precise instructions (Dio
Cassius, XLVI. 38); to the great regret of Lepidus, he took the side of
Antony. (Cicero, _Epist. Familiar._, X. 30, 34.) After Antony’s defeat,
Silanus, who had lost the confidence of Lepidus, proceeded to Sicily, to
Sext. Pompey, and did not return to Rome until the peace of Misenum had
been concluded with the latter, in 715. (Velleius Paterculas, II. 77.)
Nothing more is known of his life, except that Augustus, in 729, took
him as his colleague in the consulship. (Dio Cassius, LIII. 25.).
19. C. CANINIUS REBILUS.
Caius Caninius Rebilus, great-grandson, in all probability, of the
person of that name who was prætor in 583, does not appear in history
until the war with Gaul. Cæsar sent him, in 705, to Scribonius Libo, to
treat of peace with Pompey. (Cæsar, _De Bello Civili_, I. 26.) Rebilus
next accompanied Curio into Africa, and escaped only with a small number
from the defeat inflicted upon them by King Juba. (_De Bello Civili_,
II. 24.) In 708 he was still making war in the same province, and took
Thapsus after the defeat of Scipio. (Cæsar, _De Bello Africano_, 86,
93.) In 709 he commanded in Spain the garrison of Hispalis. (Cæsar, _De
Bello Hispano_, 35.) At the end of the same year, Cæsar caused him to be
named consul, in the place of Q. Fabius, who had died suddenly: it was
on the eve of the Calends of January that this event had taken place.
Rebilus consequently was only consul for a few hours, and the short
period of his office has excited the jokes of Cicero. (_Epist.
Familiar._, VII. 30.--Dio Cassius, XLIII. 46.--Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 63.)
No other details are known of the life of this lieutenant of Cæsar.
20. M. SEMPRONIUS RUTILUS.
History is silent on what became of this lieutenant after the war of
Gaul.
21. MARCUS ANTONIUS (MARK ANTONY).
The biography of Mark Antony is too well known, and is too much mixed up
with the events which followed the war in Gaul, to render it necessary
to give a sketch of it here. It is well known that Mark Antony, born in
671, was the son of a Mark Antony who had served in Crete, and grandson
of the celebrated orator of the same name. His mother was a Julia, and
belonged, consequently, to the family of Cæsar. After having encouraged
and supported Cæsar in his projects on Rome, he became his _magister
equitum_, when the dictature had been conferred upon him. At Pharsalia,
he commanded the left wing of Cæsar’s army. After the murder of the
great man, he was the rival of Octavius, and subsequently, with Lepidus,
his colleague in the triumvirate. When disunion arose between the future
Augustus and the ancient lieutenant of his uncle, the battle of Actium
completed the ruin of Antony, who, having taken refuge in Egypt, slew
himself in despair, on the information which Cleopatra, with whom he was
violently in love, gave him of her intended suicide.
22. PUBLIUS VATINIUS.
The part played by Publius Vatinius, before he became lieutenant in
Gaul, has been told in the course of this work. At the conclusion of his
tribuneship, he was employed in the army of Cæsar; but he had already,
after his quæstorship, served in Spain in the same quality of
lieutenant, under the proconsul C. Cosconius. Threatened by the laws
Licinia and Junia, Vatinius returned to Rome, and succeeded, thanks to
the support of Clodius, in avoiding the trial with which he was
threatened. He failed in his candidature for the ædileship, figured as
one of the witnesses in the trial of Sextius, in which he showed great
animosity against the accused, and against Cicero who defended him.
Important events marked his prætorship in 699. As lieutenant of Cæsar in
the civil war (_De Bello Civili_, III. 19), after the battle of
Pharsalia, he defended Brundusium against Lælius. (_De Bello Civili_,
III. 100.) In 706 and 707 he continued to serve in the ranks of the
partisans of the Dictator, who, in the end of that year, caused the
consulship to be conferred upon him for a few days. (Dio Cassius, XLII.
55.--Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, II. 3.) In 709 he was sent by Cæsar into
Illyria, with the title of proconsul (Appian, _Illyric War_, 13), from
which province he sent obliging letters to Cicero. (_Epist. Familiar._,
V. 9, 10.) After the murder of the Dictator, when the Dalmatians had
revolted and had defeated a considerable corps of his army, Vatinius,
who mistrusted the fidelity of his soldiers, retired to Epidamnus, and
delivered his province and his legions to M. Brutus, (Titus Livius,
_Epitome_, CXVIII.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 69.--Appian, _Illyric War_,
13.) Nevertheless, he obtained, at the end of that year (711), a triumph
for his victories. It is not known what became of him afterwards.
23. Q. FUFIUS CALENUS.
Q. Fufius Calenus, of one of the most illustrious families of Rome, the
_gens Fufia_, was tribune of the people in 693, and served at that time
actively the interests of Clodius, when the latter was accused of having
violated the mysteries of the _Bona Dea_. (Cicero, _Epist. ad Atticum_,
I. 14.) As prætor during the consulship of Cæsar and Bibulus, he gave
his name to a judiciary law, and served with zeal, during his
magistracy, the projects of him whose lieutenant he became in Gaul. He
also supported Clodius in the affair of Milo. When the civil war broke
out, Fufius Calenus joined Cæsar at Brundusium; he followed him
afterwards into Spain, in the character of lieutenant. (_Epist. ad
Atticum_, IX. 5.--Cæsar, _De Bello Civili_, I. 87.) Sent afterwards into
Epirus, he took, before the battle of Pharsalia, the principal towns of
Greece. In 707, he became consul with Vatinius (Dio Casius, XLII. 55);
sided, after the death of Cæsar, with Antony, whom he defended against
the attacks of Cicero (_Philippica_, VIII. 4.--Dio Cassius, XLVI. 1-28),
and was his lieutenant during the struggles which followed. He commanded
an army in Transalpine Gaul in 713, when he was carried off by a sudden
death, at the moment when he was on the point of encountering the troops
of Octavius. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, V. 3, 51.--Dio Cassius, XLVIII. 20.)
24. L. CÆSAR
L. Julius Cæsar, who appears as lieutenant of the great Cæsar only at
the end of the war of Gaul, belonged to the same family as himself; he
was a son of L. Julius Cæsar, consul in the time of the war against the
Marsi, who was assassinated by Fimbria, and brother of Julia, mother of
Mark Antony. He stood for the ædileship without success (Cicero, _Orat.
pro Plancio_, 21), was more fortunate in his petition for the
consulship, and exercised that high magistracy in 690. (Cicero, _Orat.
pro Murena_, 34; _Epist. ad Atticum_, I. 1, 2.--Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 6.)
He was, with Cæsar, the year after, one of the judges (_duumvir
perduellionis_) in the trial of C. Rabirius. (Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 27.)
When the Senate was deliberating on the conspiracy of Catiline, the
relationship which united him with P.Lentulus did not prevent him from
voting for his condemnation to death. After the war of Gaul, he returned
to Rome, and, in the year 707, Mark Antony invested him with the
functions of prefect of the town; he was then very aged. (Dio Cassius,
XLII. 30.) After Cæsar had been assassinated, L. Cæsar withdrew from the
party of Antony, although the latter was his nephew, for which he has
been praised by Cicero. (_Epist. Familiar._, XII. 2.) But his opposition
softened down afterwards, and he rejected the proposal to declare war
against the ancient lieutenant of Cæsar, made by the great orator.
(Cicero, _Philippica_, VIII. 1; _Epist. Familiar._, X. 28.) This was the
effect of the influence exercised upon him by his sister Julia, to whom
he owed his safety in the proscription which followed the conclusion of
the triumvirate. (Appian, _Civil Wars_, IV. 12.--Plutarch, _Cicero_, 61;
_Antony_, 20.--Floras, IV. 6.--Velleias Paterculus, II. 67.) Nothing is
known concerning his after life.
END OF VOL. II.
* * * * *
STANDARD HISTORIES
PUBLISHED BY
HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK.
HARPER & BROTHERS _will send the following books by mail, postage
prepaid, to any part of the United States, on receipt of the price_.
ABBOT’S HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. The French Revolution of 1789,
as viewed in the Light of Republican Institutions. By JOHN S.C. ABBOTT.
With 100 Engravings: 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.
ABBOTT’S NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. The History of Napoleon Bonaparte. By JOHN
S.C. ABBOTT. With Maps, Woodcuts, and Portraits on Steel. 2 Vols., 8vo,
Cloth, $10 00.
NAPOLEON AT ST. HELENA. Or, Interesting Anecdotes and Remarkable
Conversations of the Emperor during the Five and a Half Years of his
Captivity. Collected from the Memorials of Las Casas, O’Meara,
Montholon, Antommarchi, and others. By JOHN S.C. ABBOTT. With
Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.
ALISON’S HISTORY OF EUROPE. _First Series_: From the Commencement of the
French Revolution, in 1789, to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815.
[In addition to the Notes on Chapter LXXVI., which correct the errors of
the original work concerning the United States, a copious Analytical
Index has been appended to this American Edition.] _Second Series:_ From
the Fall of Napoleon, in 1815, to the Accession of Louis Napoleon, in
1852. A New Series. Eight Vols., 8vo, Cloth, $16 00.
CARLYLE’S FREDERICK THE GREAT. History of Friedrich II., called
Frederick the Great. By THOMAS CARLYLE, Author of a “History of the
French Revolution,” “Oliver Cromwell,” &c. With Portraits and Maps.
Complete in six Vols. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00 per Volume.
CARLYLE’S FRENCH REVOLUTION. History of the French Revolution. Newly
revised by the Author. With Index, &c. Two Vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 50.
CARLYLE’S OLIVER CROMWELL. Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. With
Elucidations and Connecting Narrative. Two Vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 50.
CURTIS’S HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. History of the Origin, Formation,
and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States. By GEORGE TICKNOR
CURTIS. Complete in two large and handsome Octavo Volumes. Cloth, $6 00.
DRAPER’S INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE. A History of the
Intellectual Development of Europe. By JOHN WILLIAM DRAPER, M.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Chemistry and Physiology in the University of New York;
Author of a “Treatise on Human Physiology,” &c. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.
GIBBON’S ROME. History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By
EDWARD GIBBON. With Notes by Rev. H.H. MILMAN and M. GUIZOT. A New Cheap
Edition. To which is added a complete Index of the whole Work, and a
Portrait of the Author. Six Vols., 12mo, Cloth, $9 00.
GIESELER’S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. A Text-Book of Church History. By Dr.
JOHN C.L. GIESELER. Translated from the Fourth Revised German Edition,
by SAMUEL DAVIDSON, LL.D., and Rev. JOHN WINSTANLEY HULL, M.A. A new
American Edition, revised and edited by HENRY B. SMITH, Professor in the
Union Theological Seminary, New York. Vols. I., II., III., and IV. 8vo,
Cloth, $2 25 per Volume.
GROTE’S HISTORY OF GREECE. Twelve Vols., 12mo, Cloth, $18 00.
HALLAM’S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from the Accession of Henry
VII. to the Death of George II. By HENRY HALLAM. 8vo, Sheep extra, $2
00.
HALLAM’S LITERATURE. Introduction to the Literature of Europe during the
Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries. By HENRY HALLAM. Two
Vols., 8vo, Sheep extra, $4 00.
HALLAM’S MIDDLE AGES. State of Europe during the Middle Ages. By HENRY
HALLAM. 8vo, Sheep extra, $2 00.
HARPER’S PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE GREAT REBELLION. Part First: To the
Close of the Peninsular Campaign of 1862. 4to, Cloth, $6 00. (_Issuing
in Numbers._)
HILDRETH’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. _First Series_: From the First
Settlement of the Country to the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.
_Second Series_: From the Adoption of the Federal Constitution to the
End of the Sixteenth Congress. Six Vols., 8vo, Cloth, $18 00.
HUME’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. History of England, from the Invasion of
Julius Cæsar to the Abdication of James II., 1688. By DAVID HUME. A New
Edition, with the Author’s last Corrections and Improvements. To which
is prefixed a short Account of his Life, written by Himself. With a
Portrait of the Author. Six Vols, 12mo, Cloth, $9 00.
KINGLAKE’S CRIMEAN WAR. The Invasion of the Crimea: its Origin, and an
Account of its Progress down to the Death of Lord Raglan. By ALEXANDER
WILLIAM KINGLAKE. With Maps and Plans. Two Vols., 12mo. Vol. I., Maps,
12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
LOSSING’S FIELD-BOOK OF THE REVOLUTION. Pictorial Field-Book of the
Revolution; or, Illustrations by Pen and Pencil of the History,
Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War for Independence.
By BENSON J. LOSSING. Two Vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 50.
MACAULAY’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The History of England from the Accession
of James II. By THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULEY. With an Original Portrait of
the Author. Five Vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10 00. Duodecimo Edition, Five
Vols., Cloth, $7 50.
MOSHEIM’S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, Ancient and Modern; in which the Rise,
Progress, and Variation of Church Power are considered in their
Connection with the State of Learning and Philosophy, and the Political
History of Europe during that Period. Translated, with Notes, &c., by A.
MACLAINE, D.D. A new Edition, continued to 1826, by C. COOTE, LL.D. Two
Vols., 8vo, Sheep extra, $4 00.
MOTLEY’S DUTCH REPUBLIC. The Rise of the Dutch Republic. A History. By
JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY. With a Portrait of William of Orange. Three Vols.,
8vo, Cloth, $9 00.
MOTLEY’S UNITED NETHERLANDS. History of the United Netherlands: from the
Death of William the Silent to the Synod of Dort. With a full View of
the English-Dutch Struggle against Spain, and of the Origin and
Destruction of the Spanish Armada. By JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY, LL.D., D.C.L.
Two Vols., 8vo, Cloth, $6 00.
NAPOLEON’S CÆSAR. The History of Julius Cæsar. By His Imperial Majesty
NAPOLEON III. Vols. I. and II. now ready. With Portraits and Maps. 8vo,
Cloth.
ROBERTSON’S DISCOVERY OF AMERICA. History of the Discovery of America.
By WILLIAM ROBERTSON, LL.D. With an Account of his Life and Writings.
With Questions for the Examination of Students, by JOHN FROST, A.M.
Engravings. 8vo, Sheep extra, $2 25.
ROBERTSON’S CHARLES V. History of the Emperor Charles V.; with a View of
the Progress of Society in Europe, to the Beginning of the Sixteenth
Century. With Questions for the Examination of Students, by JOHN FROST,
A.M. Engravings. 8vo, Sheep extra, $2 25.
ROBERTSON’S SCOTLAND AND ANCIENT INDIA. History of Scotland and Ancient
India. A History of Scotland during the Reigns of Queen Mary and James
VI. till his Accession to the Crown of England. With a Review of the
Scottish History previous to that Period. Included in the same Volume is
a Dissertation concerning Ancient India. 8vo, Sheep extra, $2 25.
ROLLIN’S ANCIENT HISTORY. The Ancient History of the Egyptians,
Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Grecians, and
Macedonians: including a History of the Arts and Sciences of the
Ancients, with a Life of the Author. By JAMES BELL. Only complete
American Edition. Numerous Maps and Engravings. In two Vols., 8vo, Sheep
extra, $4 50. Also in one Vol., Sheep, $3 50.
RUSSELL’S MODERN EUROPE. History of Modern Europe, with a View of the
Progress of Society, from the Rise of Modern Kingdoms to the Peace of
Paris in 1763. By W. RUSSELL. With a Continuance of the History, by WM.
JONES. Engravings. Three Vols., 8vo, Sheep, $6 00.
STILES’S AUSTRIA. Austria in 1848 and 1849: Being a History of the late
Political Movements in Vienna, Milan, Venice, and Prague; with Details
of the Campaigns of Lombardy, and Novara; a full Account of the Rise,
Progress, and Conclusion of the Revolution in Hungary; and Historical
Sketches of the Austrian Government and the Provinces of the Empire. By
WILLIAM H. STILES, late Chargé d’Affaires at the Court of Vienna. With
Portraits of the Emperor, Metternich, Radetsky, Jellacic, and Kossuth.
Two Vols., 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.
MISS STRICKLAND’S QUEENS OF SCOTLAND. Lives of the Queens of Scotland
and English Princesses connected with the Regal Succession of Great
Britain. By AGNES STRICKLAND. Complete in eight Vols., 12mo, Cloth, $12
00.
STUDENT’S HISTORIES:
THE STUDENT’S FRANCE. A History of France from the Earliest Times
to the Establishment of the Second Empire in 1852. Illustrated by
Engravings on Wood. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT’S GIBBON. The History of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire. By EDWARD GIBBON. Abridged. Incorporating the
Researches of Recent Commentators. By WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D., Editor
of the “Classical Dictionary,” “A School Dictionary of Greece,” &c.
Illustrated by 100 Engravings on Wood. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT’S GREECE. A History of Greece from the Earliest Times
to the Roman Conquest, with Supplementary Chapters on the History
of Literature and Art. By WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D., Editor of the
Dictionaries of “Greek and Roman Antiquities,” “Biography and
Mythology,” and “Geography.” Revised, with an Appendix, by GEORGE
W. GREENE, A.M. For Schools and Students. Illustrated with 100
Woodcuts. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
THE STUDENT’S HUME. A History of England from the Earliest Times to
the Revolution in 1688. By DAVID HUME. Abridged. Incorporating the
Corrections and Researches of Recent Historians; and continued down
to the Year 1858. Illustrated by Engravings on Wood. 12mo, Cloth,
$2 00.
THE STUDENT’S ROME. A School History of Rome from the Earliest
Times to the Establishment of the Empire. With Chapters on the
History of Literature and Art. By HENRY G. LIDDELL, D.D., Dean of
Christ Church, Oxford. Illustrated by numerous Woodcuts. 12mo,
Cloth, $2 00.
THIRLWALL’S GREECE. History of Greece. By Rev. CONNOR THIRLWALL, D.D. 2
vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.
TICKNOR’S HISTORY OF SPANISH LITERATURE. With Criticisms on the
particular Works, and Biographical Notices of prominent Writers. Three
Vols., 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.
WADDINGTON’S CHURCH HISTORY. History of the Church, from the Earliest
Ages to the Reformation. By Rev. GEORGE WADDINGTON, M.A. 8vo, Cloth, $2
00.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Justin, XXIV. 4.--Titus Livius, V. 48.
[2] Polybius, II. 17-19.--Titus Livius, V. 35.
[3] Pausanias, X. 19-23.--Diodorus Siculus, _Eclog._, XXII. 13.
[4] Strabo, IV. p. 156, edit. Dübner and Müller.--Justin, XXXII. 3.
[5] Polybius, IV. 46.
[6] Justin, XXV. 2.--Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 16.--Pausanias, VII. 6, § 5.
[7] Polybius, XXXIII. 7, 8.--Titus Livius, _Epitome_, XLVII.
[8] Strabo, IV., p. 169.
[9] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LX.
[10] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXI.
[11] Strabo, IV., pp. 154, 159.--Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXI.--Florus,
III. 2.--Velleius Paterculus, II. 10.
[12] Lucan, I. 424.
[13] Cæsar, _De Bello Gallico_, I. 45.--Strabo, IV., p. 158.
[14] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXII.--Eutropius, IV. 10.--Velleius
Paterculus, I. 15.
[15] Strabo, VII., p. 243.
[16] This victory was gained by the Tigurini, a people of Helvetia, on
the territory of the Allobroges. According to the _Epitome_ of Titus
Livius (LXV.), the battle took place in the district of the Nitiobriges,
a people inhabiting the banks of the Garonne, which is not very
probable.
[17] After pillaging the temple of Toulouse.
[18] Titus Livius, _Epitome_, LXVII.--Tacitus, _Germania_, 37.
[19] _Jugurtha_, 114.
[20] _Orat. de Provinciis Consularibus_, 13.
[21] _Orat. de Provinciis Consularibus_, 13.
[22] The fugitives from Vienne founded the town which subsequently took
the name of _Lugdunum_, in a place called _Condate_, which is synonymous
with confluence. (Dio Cassius, XLVI. 50.)
[23] _Orat. de Provinciis Consularibus_, 13.
[24] _Jugurtha_, 114.
[25] Cicero, _Orat. de Provinciis Consularibus_, 13.
[26] Cicero, _Epist. ad Atticum_, I. 19.
[27] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 41.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 41.
[28] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 41.
[29] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 41.--Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 41.
[30] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 41.
[31] Cicero, _Orat. de Provinciis Consularibus_, 11.--Dio Cassius, XL.
50.
[32] Cicero, _Orat. de Provinciis Consularibus_, 14.
[33] Cicero, _Orat. de Provinciis Cousularibus_, 12.
[34] It is stated in the “Commentaries” that Cæsar placed in winter
quarters four legions among the Belgæ, and the same number among the
Ædui. (_De Bello Gallico_, VIII. 54.)--“Cæsar had with him but 5,000 men
and 300 horse. He had left the rest of his army beyond the Alps.”
(Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 36, and Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 34.)
[35] Appian, _Civil Wars_, II. 35.
[36] _De Bello Gallico_, VIII. 55.
[37] Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 68.
[38] In Suetonius, _Cæsar_, 56.--Cicero, _Brutus_, 75.
[39] Preface of Hirtius to Book VIII. of the “Commentaries.”
[40] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 13.
[41] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 10.
[42] Strabo, IV. 3, p. 160
[43] The Narbonnese reminded the Romans of the climate and productions
of Italy. (Strabo, IV. 1, p. 147.)
[44] Pomponius Mela, who compiled in the first century, from old authors
an abridgement of Geography, says that Gaul was rich in wheat and
pastures, and covered with immense forests: “Terra est frumenti præcipue
ac pabuli forax, et amœna lucis immanibus.” (_De Situ Orbis_, III.
2.)--(_De Bello Gallico_, I, 16.)--The winter was very early in the
north of Gaul. (_De Bello Gallico_, IV. 20.) Hence the proverbial
expression at Rome of _heims Gallica_. (Petronius, _Satir._ 19.--Strabo,
IV., 147-161.)--See the “Memoire on the Forests of Gaul” read before the
Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, by M. Alfred Maury.
[45] Strabo, IV., p. 147.--Diodorus Siculus, V. 26.
[46] Cæsar, after having said (V. 3) that the forests of the Ardennes
extended from the Rhine to the frontier of the Remi, _ad initium
Remorum_, adds (VI. 29) that it extended also towards the Nervii, _ad
Nervios_. Nevertheless, according to chapter 33 of book VI., we believe
that this forest extended, across the country of the Nervii, to the
Scheldt. How otherwise could Cæsar have assigned to the forests of the
Ardennes a length of 500 miles, if it ended at the eastern frontier of
the Nervii? This number is, in any case, exaggerated, for from the Rhine
(at Coblentz) to the Scheldt, towards Ghent and Antwerp, it is but 300
kilomètres, or 200 miles.
[47] _De Bello Gallico_, VIII. 5.
[48] “Citra flumen Ararim ... reliqui sese fugæ mandarunt atque in
proximas silvas abdiderunt.” (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 12.)
[49] “Menapii propinqui Eburonum finibus, perpetuis paludibus silvisque
muniti.” (_De Bello Gallico_, VI. 5.)
[50] “(Morini et Menapii) ... silvas ac paludes habebant, eo se suaque
contulerunt.” (_De Bello Gallico_, III. 28.)
[51] “(Sugambri) primos Eburonum fines adeunt ... non silvæ morantur.”
(_De Bello Gallico_, VI. 35.)
[52] Strabo, p. 163, edit. Didot.
[53] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 2.
[54] Strabo, pp. 121, 155, 170, edit. Didot.
[55] “Carpenta Gallorum.” (Florus, I. 13)--“Plurima Gallica (verba)
valuerunt, ut reda ac petorritum.” (Quintilian, _De Institutione
Oratoria_, lib. I., cap. v. 57.)--“Petorritum enim est non ex Græcia
dimidiatum, sed totum transalpibus, nam est vox Gallica. Id scriptum est
in libro M. Varronis quarto decimo _Rerum Divinarum_; quo in loco Varro,
quum de petorrito dixisset, esse id verbum Gallicum dixit.” (Aulus
Gellius, XV. 30.)--“Petoritum et Gallicum vehiculum est, et nomen ejus
dictum esse existimant a numero quatuor rotarum. Alii Osce, quod hi
quoque _petora_ quatuor vocent. Alii Græce, sed αἱλικὡς dictum.”
(Festus, voc. _Petoritum_, p. 206, edit. Müller.)--“Belgica esseda,
Gallicana vehicula. Nam Belga civitas est Galliæ in qua hujusmodi
vehiculi repertus est usus.” (Servius, _Commentaries on the Georgics_ of
Virgil, lib. III. v. 204.--Cæsar, _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 33, and
_passim_.
[56] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 5.
[57] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 7.
[58] _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 11.
[59] _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 34, 53.
[60] _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 58.
[61] The reckoning of these contingents is the most positive element for
estimating the state of the population. We find in the “Commentaries”
three valuable statements: 1st, the numerical state of the Helvetian
immigration in 696 (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 29.); 2nd, that of the Belgic
troops, in the campaign of 697 (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 4.); 3rd, the
census of the Gaulish army which, in 702, attempted to raise the siege
of Alesia (_De Bello Gallico_, VII. 75.) Of 368,000 men, composing the
agglomeration of the Helvetii and their allies, 92,000 were able to bear
arms; that is, about a quarter of the population. In the campaign of
697, the Belgic coalition counted 296,000 combatants, and, in 702, at
the time of the blockade of Alesia, the effective force of a great part
of Gaul amounted to 281,000 men. But, in order not to count twice the
different contingents of the same states, we suppress from the
enumeration of the year 702 the contingents of the countries already
mentioned in the census of 697, which reduces the effective force to
201,000 men. Yet this number cannot represent the total of men fit for
war; it comprises only the troops which could easily be sent out of the
territory, and which were more numerous accordingly as the people to
which they belonged were nearer to the theatre of military operations.
Thus Cæsar informs us that the Bellovaci, who could bring into the field
100,000 men, only furnished 60,000 picked men in 697, and 10,000 in 702.
The contingent of the Atrebates, which had been 15,000 men in 697, was
reduced to 4,000 in 702; that of the Nervii, of 50,000 in the former
year, sank to 5,000; and that of the Morini similarly from 25,000 to
5,000. From these circumstances we may be allowed to infer that the
Gauls armed three-fifths of their male population when the enemy was
near their territory, and only one-fifth, or even one-sixth, when he was
more distant.
If, then, we would form an idea of the total number of men able to carry
arms in Gaul, we must augment the contingents really furnished,
sometimes by two-fifths, sometimes in a higher proportion, according to
the distances which separated them from the seat of war. By this
calculation, the levies of 697 represent 513,600 men capable of carrying
arms, and those of 702, at least 573,600; we add together these two
numbers, because, as stated above, each army comprises different
populations, which gives 1,087,200 men, to whom we must add 92,000
Helvetii; moreover, it is indispensable to take into account the
contributive capability of the populations which are not mentioned in
the “Commentaries” among the belligerents at the two epochs indicated
above, such as the Pictones, the Carnutes, the Andes, the Remi, the
Treviri, the Lingones, the Leuci, the Unelli, the Redones, the
Ambivareti, and the peoples of Armorica and Aquitaine. By an approximate
estimate of their population according to the extent of their territory,
we shall obtain the number of 625,000 men. Adding together these four
numbers, to obtain the total number of men capable of bearing arms, we
shall get 513,600 + 573,600 + 92,000 + 625,000 = 1,804,200 men.
Quadrupling this number to get, according to the proportion applied to
the Helvetii, the total of the population, we shall have 7,216,800
inhabitants for Gaul, the Roman province not included. In fact, Diodorus
Siculus, who wrote in the first century of our era, says (lib. V., c.
25) that the population of the different nations of Gaul varies from
200,000 to 50,000 men, which would make a mean of 125,000 men. If we
take the word ἁνδρες in the sense of inhabitants, and if we admit with
Tacitus that there were in Gaul sixty-four different nations, we should
have the number of 8,000,000 inhabitants, very near the preceding.
[62] Pliny expresses himself thus: “The country comprised under the name
of _Gallia Comata_ is divided into three peoples, generally separated by
rivers. From the Scheldt to the Seine is Belgic Gaul; from the Seine to
the Garonne, Celtic, called also _Lyonnese_; from thence to the Pyrenees
is Aquitaine.” (_Hist. Nat._, IV. xxxi. 105.)
[63] PEOPLES COMPOSING THE ROMAN PROVINCE:
_The Albici_ (the south of the department of the Lower Alps, and the
north of the Var). (_De Bello Civil._, I. 34; II. 2.)
_The Allobroges_, probably of Celtic origin, inhabited the north-west of
Savoy, and the greater part of the department of the Isère.
_The Helvii_, inhabitants of the ancient Vivarais (the southern part of
the department of the Ardèche), separated from the Arverni by the
Cévennes. (_De Bello Gallico_, VII. 8.)
_The Ruteni_ of the province (_Ruteni Provinciales_), a fraction of the
Celtic nation of the Ruteni, incorporated into the Roman province, and
whose territory extended over a part of the department of the Tarn.
_The Sallyes_, or _Salluvii_ (the Bouches-du-Rhône, and western part of
the Var). (_De Bello Civil._, I. 35, edit. Nipperdey.)
_The Vocontii_ (department of the Drôme and Upper Alps, southern part of
the Isère, and the northern part of the Ardèche).
_The Volcæ_ occupied all Lower Languedoc, from the Garonne to the Rhone.
They had emigrated from the north of Gaul. They were subdivided into the
Volcæ Tectosages, who had Tolosa (_Toulouse_) for their principal town;
and the Volcæ Arecomici.
_The Deciates_ (western part of the department of the }
Maritime Alps). }
}
_The Oxybii_ (eastern part of the department of the } Not mentioned by
Var). } Cæsar.
}
_The Sordones_, of the same race as the Aquitainians, }
inhabiting the Eastern Pyrenees and the Aude. }
_The Caturiges._ } Independent peoples on the upper channels of the Durance
_The Centrones._ } and the Isère, and in the mountains of the
_The Graioceli._ } Tarentaise.
[64] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 10.
[65] Four hundred, according to Appian (_Civil War_, II. 150); three
hundred and five, according to Flavius Josephus (_Wars of the Jews_, II.
xxviii. 5); three hundred, according to Plutarch (_Cæsar_, 15); about a
hundred and forty, according to Pliny (_Hist. Nat._, III. 5; IV. 31-33).
[66] “Nevertheless, it was said at Rome that it was not only the Treviri
and the Ædui who revolted, but the sixty-four states of Gaul.” (Tacitus,
_Annal._, III. 44.)--The revolt in question was that of Sacrovir, under
Tiberius.
[67] Strabo, IV., p. 163, edit. Didot.
[68] Although of Germanic origin, like the Nervii, and glorying in it
(Tacitus, _Germania_, 28), the Treviri were often at war with the
Germans. (Cæsar, _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 68.)
[69] PEOPLES OF BELGIC GAUL:
_The Aduatuci_, who occupied a part of the province of Namur.
_The Ambiani_, a people of the department of the Somme. Their chief town
was Samarobriva (_Amiens_).
_The Ambivareti_, established on the left bank of the Meuse, to the
south of the marsh of Peel.
_The Atrebates_, the people of the ancient Artois, and a part of French
Flanders. Their principal _oppidum_ was Nemetocenna (_Arras_).
_The Bellovaci_, occupying the greater part of the department of the
Oise (the ancient Beauvaisis), and who extended, probably, to the sea.
(Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, IV. 17.)
_The Caletes_, whose territory answered to the ancient Pays de Caux (the
western and central part of the department of the Seine-Inférieure).
_The Leuci_, who occupied the southern part of the department of the
Meuse, the greater part of that of the Meurthe, and the department of
the Vosges.
_The Mediomatrices_. They extended from the upper course of the Meuse to
the Rhine (department of the Moselle, and part of the departments of the
Meuse, the Meurthe, the Upper Rhine, and the Lower Rhine).
_The Menapii_, who occupied the territory comprised between the Rhine
and the mouths of the Scheldt.
_The Morini_, who inhabited the western part of the department of the
Pas-de-Calais, and extended to near the mouths of the Scheldt.
_The Nervii_, established between the Sambre and the Scheldt (French and
Belgic Hainaut, provinces of Southern Brabant, of Antwerp, and part of
Eastern Flanders). The writers posterior to Cæsar mention Bagacum
(_Bavay_) as their principal town.
_The Ceutrones_, }
_The Geiduni_, } Clients (or dependents) of the Nervi, whose territories
_The Grudii_, } appear to have been situated on the left of
_The Pleumoxii_, } the Meuse, from Mézières to near Hasselt.
_The Levaci_, }
_The Remi_, whose territory embraced the greater part of the departments
of the Marne and the Ardennes, a fraction of the departments of the
Aisne and the Meuse, and of the province of Luxemburg. Their principal
town was Durocortorum (_Rheims_).
_The Suessiones_, the people of the ancient Soissonais, whose territory
comprised the greater part of the department of the Aisne. Principal
_oppidum_, Noviodunum (_Soissons_).
_The Treviri_, separated from Germany by the Rhine, and occupying the
whole lower basin of the Moselle (Rhenish Luxemburg, Prussia, and
Bavaria). The Treviri had for clients--
_The Condrusi_, established to the south of the Meuse, in the
ancient Condroz, and who reached almost to Aix-la-Chapelle.
_The Eburones_, occupying part of the provinces of Liége and
Limburg, and reaching to the Rhine through the ancient duchy of
Juliers.
_The Ceresi_, }
_The Pæmani_, } whose territories extended on the east of the Meuse,
_The Segni_, } to the north of the Remi and the Treviri.
_The Triboces_, established on both banks of the Rhine, occupied the
central part of the Grand Duchy of Baden and the north of the department
of the Lower Rhine, perhaps already invaded, on the left bank. Their
presence on the left bank of the Rhine appears from Cæsar’s account.
(_De Bello Gallico_, IV. 10.)
_The Veliocasses_, whose territory embraced the ancient Vexin, and who
occupied part of the departments of the Seine-Inférieure and the Eure.
_The Veromandui_, occupying the ancient Vermandois, the northern part of
the Aisne, and the eastern part of the Somme.
[70] “Qui belli gloria Gallos omnes Belgasque præstabant.” (_De Bello
Gallico_, II. 4, and VIII. 6.)
[71] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, IV. xxxi, 17.
[72] PEOPLES OF CELTIC GAUL:
_The Arverni_ extended over a vast region, comprising the present
departments of the Puy-de-Dôme and Cantal, and part of those of the
Allier and the Upper Loire. Gergovia was their principal town. The
Arverni had for clients--
_The Cadurei Eleutheri_, whose territory answered to the ancient Quercy
(department of the Lot). [This epithet of Eleutheri, which is found in
Cæsar (_De Bello Gallico_, VIII. 75) leads us to believe that in
southern Quercy there existed Cadurci placed under the dominion of
Rome.]
_The Gabali_, who occupied the ancient Gévaudan (the department of the
Lozère).
_The Vellavi_, whose territory answered to the ancient Velay (department
of the Upper Loire).
_The Aulerci_ formed an extensive nation, which was subdivided into
three great tribes, established over the country from the lower course
of the Seine to the Mayenné.
1. _The Aulerci Cenomanni_, a fraction of whom was, as early as the
sixth century of Rome, established in Cisalpine Gaul, between the
Oglio and the Adige, and who occupied in Gaul the greater part of
the territory now forming the department of the Sarthe;
2. _The Aulerci Diablintes_, the northern and central parts of the
department of the Mayenne.
3. _The Aulerci Eburovices_, the central and southern part of the
department of the Eure.
_The Bituriges_, a nation which had more than twenty towns. Avaricum
(_Bourges_) was the principal. Their territory embraced the ancient
Berry (departments of the Cher, the Indre, and part of the Allier).
_The Carnutes_ occupied the greatest part of the present departments of
Eure-et-Loir, Loir-et-Cher, and Loiret. Genabum (_Gien_) was one of
their most important towns.
_The Ædui_ occupied the modern departments of Saône-et-Loire and the
Nièvre, and a part of the Côte-d’Or and the Allier. Their principal
_oppidum_ was Bibracte (_Mont-Beuvray_), the place of which was
subsequently taken by Augustodunum (_Autun_). Cabillonum
(_Chalon-sur-Saône_), Matisco (_Mâcon_), and Noviodunum, afterwards
called Nivernum (_Nevers_), were also reckoned among their most
important places. The _Ædui_ had for clients--
_The Ambarri_, a small tribe situated between the Saône, the Rhone, and
the Ain (department of the Ain).
_The Ambluaretes_, a people occupying a district around Ambierle
(arrondissement of Roanne, department of the Loire). (?)
_The Aulerci Brannovices_, a tribe which dwelt between the Saône and the
Loire, occupied the ancient country of Brionnais.
_The Blannovii_, who occupied a territory round Blanot (Saône-et-Loire).
(?)
_The Boii_, a fraction of a great nomadic nation of this name, of Celtic
origin, authorised by Cæsar to establish themselves on the territory of
the Ædui, between the Loire and the Allier.
_The Segusiavi_, who occupied the ancient Forez (departments of the
Rhône and the Loire), and extended to the left bank of the Saône.
_The Essuvii_, established in the department of the Orne.
_The Helvetii_, who were subdivided into four tribes or _pagi_; their
territory occupied the part of Switzerland which extends from the north
shore of the Léman to the Lake of Constance.
_The Lemovices_, whose territory answered to the Limousin (departments
of the Upper Vienne and the greater part of the Corrèze and the Creuse).
_The Lingones_, whose territory embraced the greatest part of the
department of the Haute-Marne and a fraction of the departments of the
Aube, the Yonne, and the Côte-d’Or.
_The Mandubii_, established between the Ædui and the Lingones
(department of the Côte-d’Or), occupied the ancient country of Auxois.
Alesia (_Alise_) was their principal _oppidum_.
_The Meldœ_ occupied the north of the department of the Seine-et-Marne
and a small part of the department of the Oise.
_The Nitiobriges_ occupied the greatest part of the department of the
Lot-et-Garonne and a fraction of the Tarn-et-Garonne.
_The Parisii_, whose territory embraced the department of the Seine and
a great part of the department of the Seine-et-Oise. Their principal
town was Lutetia (_Paris_).
_The Petrocorii_, established in the ancient Périgord (department of the
Dordogne).
_The Rauraci_, whose origin is perhaps German, established on both banks
of the Rhine, towards the elbow which the river forms at Bâle.
_The Ruteni_ occupied the ancient province of Rouergne (department of
the Aveyron).
_The Senones_, established between the Loire and the Marne. Their
principal town was Agedincum (_Sens_). Their territory comprised a part
of the departments of the Yonne, the Marne, the Loiret, Seine-et-Marne,
and the Aube.
_The Sequani_, whose territory embraced the ancient Franche-Comté (Jura,
Doubs, Haute-Saône, and part of the Haut-Rhin). Principal town, Vesontio
(_Besançon_).
_The Turones_, who occupied Touraine (department of Indre-et-Loire).
The peoples whom Cæsar calls _maritime_, or _Armorican_, were--
_The Ambibari_, established at the point where the departments of
La Manche and Ille-et-Vilaine join.
_The Ambiliates_, whose territory comprised the part of the
department of Maine-et-Loire situated to the south of the Loire.
_The Andes_, occupying Anjon (department of Maine-et-Loire and a
fraction of the department of the Sarthe).
_The Curiosolitæ_, occupying the greatest part of the department of
the Côtes-du-Nord.
_The Lemovices Armorici_, fixed to the south of the Loire, in the
southern part of the department of the Loire-Inférieure and the
west of that of Maine-et-Loire.
_The Lexovii_, occupying the department of Calvados, and a fraction
of that of the Eure.
_The Namnetes_, who occupied, in the department of the
Loire-Inférieure, the right bank of the Loire.
_The Osismii_, whose territory answered to the department of
Finistère.
_The Pictones_, occupying Poitou (departments of La Vendée, the
Deux-Sèvres, and the Vienne).
_The Redones_, whose territory embraced the greatest part of the
department of Ille-et-Vilaine.
_The Santones_, occupying Saintonge, Aunis, and Angoumois
(department of the Charente and the Charente-Inférieure, and a part
of the department of the Gironde).
_The Unelli_, the people of the ancient Contentin (department of La
Manche).
_The Veneti_, whose territory included the department of Morbihan.
To these maritime peoples we must add--
_The Caletes_, }
_The Essuvii_, } mentioned above.
_The Morinu_, }
We may also join to the Celtic populations--
_The Nuntuates_, }
_The Seduni_, } Alpine tribes, established on the upper course of the
_The Veragri_, } Rhone, in the Valais and the Chablais.
[73] Tacitus. _Germania_, 28.
[74] PEOPLES OF AQUITAINE:
_The Ausci_, who occupied the central part of the department of the
Gers, the most powerful of the nations of Aquitaine, according to
Pomponius Mela (III. 2).
_The Bigerriones_ occupied Bigorre (department of the Hautes-Pyrénées).
_The Cocosates_, established on the coasts of the Gulf of Gascony, in
the Landes (the southern part of the department of the Gironde and the
northern of the department of the Landes).
_The Elusates_ occupied the north-west part of the department of the
Gers and part of that of the Lot-et-Garonne.
_The Gates_, at the confluence of the Gers and the Garonne.
_The Garumni_, in the south of the department of the Haute-Garonne.
_The Ptianes_, probably towards Pau and Orthez.
_The Sibuzates_ appear to have occupied the ancient country of Soule
(Basses-Pyrénées).
_The Sotiates_ occupied the south-west part of the department of
Lot-et-Garonne and a part of the departments of the Landes and the Gers.
_The Tarbelli_ occupied all the territory bordering upon the head of the
Gulf of Gascony (departments of the Landes and the Basses-Pyrénées).
_The Tarusates_, established on the Adour, in the ancient Tursan (the
south-east part of the department of the Landes). PEOPLES OF AQUITAINE
(_continued_).
_The Vasates_ or _Vocates_, established in the country of Bazas (the
south-east part of the department of the Gironde).
_The Bituriges Vivisci_, the most northern of the peoples }
of Aquitane (department of the Gironde). }
}
_The Convenes_ (a confederacy of small tribes established } Not mentioned by
in the valleys of the Hautes-Pyrénées and the } Cæsar.
southern part of the department of the Haute-Garonne). }
[75] “Pagus, pars civitatis.” (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 12.)
[76] Cæsar mentions in different pasages the existence of _vici_ among
the Helvetii (I. 5), the Allobroges _trans Rhodanum_ (I. 11), the Remi
(II. 7), the Morini (III. 29), the Menapii (IV. 4), the Eburones (VI.
43), the Boii (VII. 14), the Carnutes (VIII. 5), and the Veragri (III.
1).
[77] _De Bello Gallico_ VII. 15, 25, 68.
[78] The “Commentaries” name twenty-one _oppida_: Alesia, Avaricum,
Bibracte, Bibrax, Bratuspantium, Cabillonum, Genabum, Genava, Gergovia,
Gorgobina, Lutetia, Lemonum, Melodunum, Noviodunum Æduorum, Noviodunum
Biturigum, Noviodunum Suessionum, Uxellodunum, Vellaunodunum, Vesontio,
the _oppidum_ Aduatucorum, and the _oppidum_ Sotiatum.
[79] “Oppidum dictum quod ibi homines opes suas conferunt.” (Paulus
Diaconus, p. 184, edit. Müller.)
[80] The Gauls lived in houses, or rather in huts, constructed of wood
and with hurdles, tolerably spacious and of a circular form, covered
with a high roof. (Strabo, IV. 163, edit. Didot.)--The Gauls, to avoid
the heat, almost always built their habitations in the neighbourhood of
woods and rivers. (Cæsar, _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 30.)
[81] See a very curious passage in Solinus, chap. 25, on the practice of
tattooing among the Gauls.
[82] Diodorus Siculus (V. 28) says that the Gauls were of tall stature,
had white flesh, and were lymphatic in constitution. Some shaved; the
majority had beards of moderate size.--According to Titus Livius, the
Gauls possessed a tall stature (_procera corpora_), flowing hair of an
auburn colour (_promissæ et rutilatæ comæ_), a white complexion
(_candida corpora_). (Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 17, 21, and Ammianus
Marcellinus, XV. 22.) The latter adds that the Gauls had generally a
threatening and terrible tone of voice, which is also stated by Diodorus
Siculus (V. 31).--The skeletons found in the excavations at
Saint-Etienne-au-Temple are 1·80m. to 1·90m. in length.
[83] Strabo, p. 163, edit. Didot.
[84] Isidorus Hispalensis, _Origines_, I. 19, 24.
[85] Diodorus Siculus, V. 30.
[86] Diodorus Siculus, V. 33.
[87] Pliny, XXXIII. 24.--Gold was very abundant in Gaul; silver was much
less common. The rich wore bracelets, rings on the leg, and collars, of
the purest gold and tolerably massive; they had even breastplates of
gold. (Diodorus Siculus, V. 27.)--A great number of these rings and
circles of gold, of very good workmanship, have been found in the
Gaulish burying-places. The Museum of Saint-Germain contains bracelets
and earrings of chased gold, found, in 1863, in a tumulus situated near
Châtillon-sur-Seine.
[88] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 14.
[89] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 13.
[90] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, VIII. xlviii. lxxiii., p. 127, edit. Sillig.
[91] _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 22.--Pliny, XXXIV. xvii., p. 162, edit.
Sillig.
[92] “Deinde et argentum incoquere simili modo cœpere, equorum maxime
ornamentis, jumentorumque ac jugorum, in Alesia oppido.” (Pliny, XXXIV.
xvii., p. 162.--Florus, III. 2.)
[93] Milk and the flesh of wild or domestic animals, especially swine’s
flesh fresh or salted, formed the principal food of the Gauls. (Strabo,
IV., p. 163.)--Beer and mead were the principal drink of the Gauls.
(Posidonius quoted by Athenæus, IV., p. 151, _Fragmenta Historicum
Græc._, III. 260.)--This statement is made also by Diodorus Siculus (V.
26), who informs us that this beer was made with barley.
[94] Cicero already remarked the propensity of the Gauls to drunkenness
(_Orat. pro Fonteio_), and Ammianus Marcellinus (XV. 12) also addresses
the same reproach to them, which is again stated in Diodorus Siculus (V.
26).
[95] “The Gauls, in their great hospitality, invited the stranger to
their meal as soon as he presented himself, and it was only after
drinking and eating with them that they inquired his name and country.”
(Diodorus Siculus, V. 28.)
[96] Strabo (IV., p. 162) says that the Gauls were of a frank character
and good-hearted (literally, without malice).--Ammianus Marcellinus (XV.
12), who wrote at the end of the fifth century, represents the Gauls as
excessively vain.--Strabo (IV., p. 165) assures us that they were much
inclined to disputes and quarrels.
[97] Cæsar often speaks of the fickleness of temper of this people,
which, during a long period, gave great trouble to the Roman people.
“Omnes fere Gallos novis rebus studere, et ad bellum mobiliter
celeriterque excitari.” (_De Bello Gallico_, III 10.)--Lampridius, in
his _Life of Alexander Severus_, 59, expresses himself thus: “But the
Gauls, those tempers hard to deal with, and who regret all they have
ceased to possess, often furnished grave cares to the
emperors.”--“Gallorum subita et repentina consilia.” (_De Bello
Gallico_, III. 8.)
[98] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 19.
[99] Diodorus Siculus (V. 31) says that the language of the Gauls was
very concise and figurative, and that the Gauls made use of hyperbole in
blaming and praising.
[100] Diodorus Siculus, V. 32.--Strabo, IV., p. 165.--Athenæus, XIII.,
p. 603.
[101] _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 47 and 48.--Among the Gauls, the women
were equal to the men, not only in size, but also in courage. (Diodorus
Siculus, V. 32.)--The Gaulish women were tall and strong.--Ammianus
Marcellinus (XV. 12) writes: “Several foreigners together could not
wrestle against a single Gaul, if they quarrelled with him, especially
if he called for help to his wife, who even exceeds her husband in her
strength and in her haggard eyes. She would become especially formidable
if, swelling her throat and gnashing her teeth, she agitated her arms,
robust and white as snow, ready to act with feet or fists; to give blows
as vigorous as if they came from a catapult.”
[102] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 18: “Ab Dite patre prognatos.”
[103] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 18.
[104] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 19.
[105] The Gauls, like most of the barbarian peoples, looked upon the
other life as resembling the present. And with this sentiment, at the
funeral, they threw into the funereal pile, letters addressed to the
dead, which they imagined he read. (Diodorus Siculus, V. 28.)
[106] Titus Livius tells us (XXXVIII. 17) that the Gauls had long swords
(_prælongi gladii_) and great bucklers (_vasta scuta_). In another
passage (XXII. 46) he remarks that the swords of the Gauls were long and
without point (_prælongi ac sine mucronibus_).--Their bucklers were
long, narrow, and flat (_scuta longa, cœterum ad amplitudinem corporum
parum lata et ea ipsa plana_). (Titus Livius, XXXVIII. 21.)--“Et Biturix
longisque leves Suessones in armis.” (Lucan, _Pharsalia_, I.
422.)--Didorus Siculus (V. 30) says that the Gauls had iron coats of
mail. He adds: “Instead of glaive (ξἱφος), they have long swords
(σπἁθη), which they carry suspended to their right side by chains of
iron or bronze. Some bind their tunics with gilt or silvered girdles.
They have spears (λὁγχη or λογχἱς) having an iron blade a cubit long,
and sometimes more. The breadth is almost two palms, for the blade of
these _saunions_ (the Gaulish dart) is not less than that of our glaive,
and it is a little longer. Of these blades, some are forged straight,
others present undulated curves, so that they not only cut in striking,
but in addition they tear the wound when they are drawn out.”
[107] Strabo, IV., p. 163, edit. Didot.--Pseudo-Cicero (_Ad Herennium_,
IV. 32) writes _materis_.
[108] The _amentum_ was a small strap of leather which served to throw
the javelin and doubled its distance of carriage, as recent trials have
proved. In the _De Bello Gallico_, V. 48, there is mention of a Gaul
throwing the javelin with the _amentum_; but this Gaul was in the Roman
service, which explains his having more perfect arms. Strabo says that
the Gauls used javelins like the Roman _velites_, but that they threw
them with the hand, and not by means of a strap. (Strabo, edit. Didot,
II. 65.)
[109] Diodorus Siculus, V. 30.
[110] Diodorus Siculus, V. 30.--Varro, _De Lingua Latina_, V. 116.--The
Museum of Zurich possesses a Gaulish breastplate formed of long plates
of iron. The Louvre and the Museum of Saint-Germain possess Gaulish
breastplates in bronze.
[111] “Optimus excusso Lucus Remusque lacerto.” (Lucan, _Pharsalia_, I.
424.)
[112] “Pugnaces pictis cohibebant Lingonas armis.” (Lucan, _Pharsalia_,
I. 398.)
[113] Strabo, IV., p. 163, edit. Didot.
[114] Pausanias (_Phocid._, XIX. 10, 11), speaking of the ancient Gauls,
who had penetrated to Delphi, says that “each horseman had with him two
esquires, who were also mounted on horses; when the cavalry was engaged
in combat, these esquires were poised behind the main body of the army,
either to replace the horsemen who were killed, or to give their horse
to their companion if he lost his own, or to take his place in case he
were wounded, while the other esquire carried him out of the battle.”
[115] _De Bello Civili_, I. 39.
[116] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 20 and VII. 22.
[117] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 21 and VII. 22.
[118] _De Bello Gallico_, VIII. 14.
[119] Diodorus Siculus, V. 29.--See the bas-reliefs from Entremonts in
the Museum of Aix, representing Gaulish horsemen, whose horses have
human heads suspended to the poitrel.
[120] Cæsar, _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 5; VII. 3.
[121] Titus Livius (V. 46) represents the Gauls as very religious.
[122] The existence of human sacrifices among the Gauls is attested by a
great number of authors. (Cicero, _Orat. pro Fonteio_, xiv.
31.--Dionysius of Halicarnassus, I. 38.--Lucan, _Pharsalia_, I. 444;
III. 399, _et seq._--Solinus, 21.--Plutarch, _De Superstitione_, p.
171.--Strabo, IV., p. 164, edit. Didot.)
[123] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 17.
[124] _Pharsalia_, I., lines 445, 446.
[125] “So, in spite of their love of money, the Gauls never touched the
piles of gold deposited in the temples and sacred woods, so great was
their horror of sacrilege.” (Diodorus Siculus, V. 27.)
[126] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 13, _et seq._
[127] “The Gauls have poets who celebrate in rhythmic words, on a sort
of lyre, the high deeds of heroes, or who turn to derision disgraceful
actions.” (Diodorus Siculus, V. 31.) And he adds: “They have
philosophers and theologians, who are held in great honour, and are
named _Druids_ (according to certain texts, _Saronides_). They have
diviners, whose predictions are held in great respect. These consult the
future by the aid of auguries and the entrails of the victims; and, in
solemn circumstances, they have recourse to strange and incredible
rites. They immolate a man by striking him with a sword above the
diaphragm, and they draw presages from the manner in which he falls, in
which he struggles, or in which the blood flows. They authority of the
Druids and bards is not less powerful in peace than in war. Friends and
enemies consult them, and submit to their decision; it has often been
sufficient to arrest two armies on the point of engaging.”--Strabo (VI.,
p. 164, edit. Didot) relates nearly the same facts. He makes a
distinction also between the bards, the priests, and the Druids.
[128] Ammianus Marcellinus (XV. 9) speaks as follows of the ancient
Druids: “The men of that country (Gaul), having become gradually
polished, caused the useful studies to flourish which the bards, the
_euhages_ (prophets), and the Druids had begun to cultivate. The bards
sang, in heroic verse, to the sound of their lyres, the lofty deeds of
men; the _euhages_ tried, by meditation, to explain the order and
marvels of nature. In the midst of these were distinguished the Druids,
who united in a society, occupied themselves with profound and sublime
questions, raised themselves above human affairs, and sustained the
immortality of the soul.” These details, which Ammianus Marcellinus
borrows from the Greek historian Timagenes, a contemporary of Cæsar, and
from other authors, show that the sacerdotal caste comprised three
classes--1, the bards; 2, the prophets; 3, the Druids, properly so
called.
[129] Amédée Thierry, II. 1.
[130] See Paulus Diaconus, p. 4, edit. Müller.
[131] Diodorus Siculus, V. 29.
[132] _De Bello Gallico_; III. 22.
[133] Cæsar mentions the names of ten kings: 1. Catamantalœdes, among
the Sequani (I. 3); 2. Divitiacus and Galba, among the Suessiones (II.
4, 13): 3. Commius, among the Atrebates (IV. 21, 27, 35; V. 22; VI. 6;
VII. 75, 76, 79; VIII. 6, 7, 10, 21, 23, 47, 48); 4. Catuvolcus, among
the Eburones (V. 24, 26; VI. 31); 5. Tasgetius, among the Carnutes (V.
25, 29); 6. Cavarinus, among the Treviri (V. 54; VI. 5); 7. Ambiorix,
among the Eburones (V. 24, 26, 27, 29, 38, 41; VI. 5, 6, 19, 29, 30, 31,
32, 42, 47; VIII. 24, 25); 8. Moritasgus, among the Senones (V. 54); 9.
Teutomatus, among the Nitiobriges (VII. 31, 46).
[134] _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 88; VIII. 12.
[135] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 16.
[136] Thus the _Civitates Armoricæ_ (V. 53; VII. 75; VIII. 81); Belgium
(V. 12, 24, 25; VIII. 46, 49, 54; the Aulerci Cenomanni and the Aulerci
Eburovices (II. 34; III. 17; VII. 4, 75; VIII. 7). See the interesting
memoir by Mr. Valentino Smith.
[137] Ambarri, necessarii et consanguinei Æduorum (I. 11); Suessiones
fratres consanguineosque Remorum, qui eodem jure et iisdem legibus
utuntur (II. 3); Suessiones qui Remis erant adtributi (VIII. 6).
[138] _In fide_; thus the Ædui with the Bellovaci (II. 14); with the
Senones (VI. 4); with the Bituriges (VII. 5).
[139] Eburonum et Condrusorum, qui sunt Trevirorum clientes (IV. 6);
Carnutes ... usi deprecatoribus Remis, quorum erant in clientela (VI.
4); imperant Æduis atque eorum clientibus Segusiavis, Ambluaretis,
Aulercis Brannovicibus, Brannoviis (VII. 75)
[140] The known federations of this kind are--1, that of the Belgæ
against the Romans, in the year 57 before Jesus Christ (_De Bello
Gallico_, II. 4); 2, that of the Veneti with the neighbouring tribes, in
the year 56 (_De Bello Gallico_, III. 9); 3, that of the Treviri, the
Nervii, The Aduatuci, and the Menapii, in the year 53 (_De Bello
Gallico_, VI. 2); 4, that of the peoples who invested Camulogenus with
the supreme power, in 52 (_De Bello Gallico_, VII. 57); 5, the great
federation which placed all the forces of Gaul under the command of
Vercingetorix (_De Bello Gallico_, VII. 63).
[141] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 11.
[142] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 11.
[143] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 3, 54; VI. 11; VII. 75; VIII. 22.
[144] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 30.
[145] _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 63.
[146] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 11.
[147] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 12.
[148] _De Bello Gallico_, VII. 4.
[149] _Précis des Guerres de César_, by the Emperor Napoleon I., p. 53,
Paris, 1836.
[150] The hostility which prevailed between the Sequani and the Ædui was
further augmented, according to Strabo, by the following cause: “These
two tribes, separated by the Arar (the _Saône_), both claimed the right
of tolls.” (Strabo, p. 160, edit. Didot.)
[151] “Divitiacus, introduced to the Senate, explained the subject of
his mission. He was offered a seat, but refused that honour, and
pronounced his discourse leaning on his buckler.” (Eumenius, _Panegyric
of Constantine_, cap. 3.)
[152] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 12.
[153] The limits of Illyria, in the time of Cæsar, are hardly known; yet
it appears that this province comprised the modern Istria and part of
Carniola. Aquileia was its capital, situated at the head of the gulf of
the Adriatic Sea, not far from the Isonzo. In fact, Strabo (I., p. 178)
says that Aquileia was situated without the frontiers of the Veneti, in
whose territory this town was included under Augustus. On another side,
Titus Livius (XXXIX. 55) informs us that the colony of Aquileia had been
founded in Istria; and Herodotus (I. 196), as well as Appian, reckons
the Istrians among the peoples of Illyria.
[154] “Molita cibaria.” (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 5.)
[155] Inhabitants of the country of Bâle. The Rauraci inhabited the
diocese of Bâle, which was called _Augusta Rauracorum_.
[156] Inhabitants of the south of the Grand Duchy of Baden. The town of
Stulingen, near Schaffhausen, is believed to derive its name from the
Tulingi.
[157] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 3, 4, and 5.--Scholars have taken great
pains to determine the concordance between the ante-Julian calendar and
the Julian calendar; unfortunately, the results at which they have
arrived are very imperfect. We have asked M. Le Verrier to solve this
difficult problem, and we owe to his courtesy the tables placed at the
end of this volume. (_Appendix A._)
[158] The bed of the Rhone has changed at several points since the time
of Cæsar; at present, according to the report of those who live on its
banks, there are no fords except between Russin, on the right bank, and
the mill of Vert, on the left bank. (_See Plate 3._)
[159] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 6.
[160] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 18.
[161] This part of the Jura on the left bank of the Rhone is called the
_Mont du Vuache_.
[162] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 8.
[163] M. Queypo, in his learned work on the weights and measures of the
ancients, assigns to the Roman foot, subdivided into twelve inches, a
length of 0·29630m. The Roman pace was five feet, so that the mile was
equivalent to a length of 1481·50m.
[164] Dio Cassius says that “Cæsar fortified with retrenchments and
walls the most important points.” (XXXVIII. 31.)
[165] The retrenchments which Cæsar calls _murus fossaque_ could not be
a wall, in the usual acceptation of the word: first, because a wall
would have been but a weak obstacle; further, because the materials were
not found on the spot; and lastly, because if so great a quantity of
stones had been collected on the bank of the Rhone, we should still find
traces of them. I have therefore sought another explanation, and thought
that _murus_ might be understood of a natural escarpment rendered
steeper by a slight work. Penetrated with this idea, I sought Baron
Stoffel, the commandant of artillery, to inspect the localities, and the
result of his researches has fully confirmed my suppositions. The
following is a summary of his report:--
Considered in its _ensemble_, from Geneva to the Pas-de-l’Ecluse, the
Rhone presents the appearance of an immense fosse from 100 to 120 mètres
broad, with abrupt and very elevated scarp and counter-scarp. The parts
where it does not present this character are few, and of relatively
small extent. They are the only ones where operations for passing the
river could be attempted--the only ones, consequently, which Cæsar would
have need to fortify on the left bank.
1. From Geneva to the confluence of the Arve and the Rhone, an extent of
1½ kilomètres. Breadth of the river, 90 to 100 mètres.--The left bank is
flat in the whole of this extent. The right bank has escarpments almost
vertical, the height of which varies from 15 to 35 mètres. (_See Plate
3_, mean profile between Geneva and the Arve.) No attempt at passage
could have taken place, neither at Geneva, nor between the town and the
Arve.
2. From the Arve to the plateau of Aire-la-Ville, extent 12½
kilomètres.--After leaving the confluence of the Arve, the heights of
the right bank of the Rhone increase in elevation; the escarpments
become formidable.--The left bank is bordered with similar escarpments,
and the river runs thus between high and abrupt banks, everywhere
impassable. It preserves this character to a kilomètre above the ravine
of Avril, near Peney. The profiles _a a_ and _b b_ give an idea of the
escarpments of the banks from the Avre to the ravine of Avril. (_See
Plate 3_.)--The heights which, on the right bank of the Rhone, extend
from Vernier to Peney, sink gradually from one of these villages towards
the other, and they form to the east of the ravine of Avril a plateau,
the mean elevation of which above the bed of the river is only 20
mètres. Opposite, on the left bank, extends the plateau of
Aire-la-Ville. Length 1,700 mètres; breadth, 700 mètres; mean elevation
above the bed of the Rhone, 20 to 25 mètres. The heights of the Peney
are well disposed for the establishment of an army, and the plateau of
Aire-la-Ville would permit an army, the Rhone once passed, to deploy
easily. But, in spite of these advantages, it is certain that the
Helvetii attempted no operation on this side, for the Rhone flows at the
foot of a slope of the height of from 14 to 16 mètres and an inclination
of at least 45 degrees.
3. From the plateau of Aire-la-Ville to the point of Epeisses, extent 6
kilomètres.--Down the river from the escarpments of Peney, the heights
of the right bank (heights of Russin) form with those of the left bank
an immense amphitheatre, nearly circular, the arena of which would be
the ground represented green on Plate 3 (diameter, 1½ kilomètres). From
the heights of Russin we can descend into the plain to the water of the
river. The Rhone, in this part, has never been deep or rapid. The left
bank is little elevated, entirely flat opposite the mill of Vert, and
the slope of the heights which command it is far from impracticable.
Thus, it was here possible for the Helvetii to effect the passage of the
river, and climb the heights of the left bank, if they had not been
fortified or guarded. This operation presented least difficulty in the
part _t t o_. And we can hardly doubt that the Romans fortified it to
add to the natural obstacles, which were insufficient in this extent.
(_See the profile c c._)
An attentive examination of the locality, the discovery of certain
irregularities of ground, which we may be allowed to consider as
vestiges, lead us to explain in the following manner the expression
_murum fossamque perducit_.
Cæsar took advantage of the mean heights at the foot of which the Rhone
flows, to cause to be made, on the slope towards the river, and
beginning with the crest, a longitudinal trench, of such a depth that
the main wall had an elevation of 16 feet. The earth arising from the
excavation was thrown down the side of the slope, and the crest was
furnished with palisades. (_See the profile of the retrenchment._) It
was, properly speaking, a fosse, the scarp of which was higher than the
counter-scarp.
The hills on the left bank, which rise opposite Russin, are accessible,
especially in an extent of 900 mètres, reckoning from the point where
the ravine which descends to Aire-la-Ville opens upon the river. They
form there, among other peculiarities of the ground, a terrace 8 mètres
in breadth, rising from 13 to 14 mètres above the plain, and descending
to this by a tolerably uniform _talus_ of 45 degrees.
The Romans would be able to prevent the access by means of the trench
just described. They, no doubt, continued it to the point _o_, where the
terrace ceases, and the heights become impracticable. It would then have
been from 800 to 900 mètres long.
If we continue to descend the Rhone, we meet, on the left bank, first
with the perpendicular escarpments of Cartigny, which are 70 or 80
mètres in height, and then abrupt beaches to near Avully. Below
Cartigny, the Rhone surrounds a little plain, very slightly inclined
towards the river, and presenting a projection of land (_v r_) from 5 to
6 mètres high, with a _talus_ of less than 45 degrees. The bank being of
small elevation, the Helvetii might have landed there. To prevent this,
the Romans opened, in the _talus_ which fronted the Rhone, a trench
similar to the preceding; it was 250 mètres long.
The heights of Avully and Epeisses leave between them and the river a
tolerably vast space, composed of two distinct parts. The first is
formed of gentle slopes from Avully to a projection of land, _q p_; the
other part is a plain comprised between this projection of land and the
left bank of the river. On the right bank a torrent-like river, the
London, debouches into flat ground named La Plaine. The Helvetii might
have made their preparations for passing the Rhone there, and directed
their efforts towards the western point of La Plaine, in face of the low
and flat land comprised between the left bank and the escarpment _q p_.
In this part the left bank is only from 1½ to 2 mètres high. Moreover,
the slopes of Avully are not difficult to climb, and therefore the
Romans must have sought to bar the passage in this direction. (_See the
broken profile d e f._) The escarpment _q p_, from its position and
height, is easy to fortify. Its length is 700 mètres; its mean elevation
above the plain, 18. It presents to the river a _talus_ of less than 45
degrees. The Romans made in this _talus_, along the crest, a trench,
forming wall and fosse. Its length was 700 mètres.
4. From the point of Epeisses to the escarpments of Etournel, extent 6
kilomètres.--From Epeisses to Chancy the Rhone flows in a straight line,
and presents the appearance of a vast fosse, 100 mètres wide, the walls
of which have an inclination of more than 45 degrees. (_See the profile
g g_.)
At 200 mètres above Chancy, at _k_, the character of the banks changes
suddenly. The heights on the right sink towards the river in tolerably
gentle slopes, through an extent of 2,300 mètres, reckoning from _k_ to
the escarpments of Etournel. Opposite, on the left bank, extends the
plateau of Chancy. It presents to the Rhone, from _k_ to _z_, in a
length of 1,400 mètres, an irregular crest, distant from 50 to 60 mètres
from the river, and commanding it by about 20 mètres. The side towards
the Rhone, from _k_ to _z_, presents slopes which are very practicable.
(_See the profile h h._)
The position of Chancy was certainly the theatre of the most serious
attempts on the part of the Helvetii. Encamped on the heights of the
right bank, they could easily descend to the Rhone, and there make their
preparations for passing, on an extent of 1,500 mètres. The river once
crossed, they had only before them, from _k_ to _z_, slopes which were
practicable to debouch on the plateau of Chancy.
The Romans had then to bar the gap _k z_ by joining the impassable
escarpments which terminate in _k_ with those which commence at _z_, and
which are also inaccessible. To effect this, they opened from one of
these points to the other, in the upper part of the slope at the foot of
which the Rhone flows, a longitudinal trench _k z_, similar to that
already spoken of. It was 1,400 mètres in length.
5. From the escarpments of Etournel to the Pas-de-l’Ecluse, an extent of
6 kilomètres.--At the escarpments of Etournel, the Rhone removes from
the heights on the right, and only returns to them towards the hamlet of
the Isles, 2 kilomètres farther down. These heights form a vast
semi-elliptical amphitheatre, embracing a plain slightly inclined
towards the river. It is marked by a green tint on Plate 3. People can
descend from all sides and approach the Rhone, the bank of which is
flat. Opposite, the left bank presents insurmountable obstacles until
below Cologny, at _s_. But below this point, from _s_ to _y_, the bank
is flat, and the heights situated behind are accessible on an extent of
2 kilomètres.
The Helvetii, established on the heights of Pougny and Colonges, could
descend to the Rhone, and cross it between Etournel and the hamlet of
Les Isles. The Romans had thus to unite the escarpments which terminate
at Cologny with the impracticable slopes of the mountain of Le Vuache.
Here again we shall see that they took advantage of the peculiarities of
the ground.
At the village of Cologny, the heights form a triangular plateau, _s u
x_, of which the point _s_ advances like a promontory towards the Rhone,
which it commands perpendicularly by at least 20 mètres. A projection of
land, _s u_, bounds it in front, and separates it from a plain which
extends to the river. The escarpment produced by this projection of land
presents to the Rhone a slope of about 45 degrees. It rises over the
plain about 14 mètres towards its extremity _s_, but diminishes
gradually in height, until it is only 2 to 3 mètres in height near the
point _u_. (_See the profile n n._) The Romans hollowed, on the slope of
the escarpment from _s_ to _u_, a length of 800 mètres, a trench forming
wall and fosse. The plateau of Cologny, situated in the rear, offered a
favorable position for the defence of this retrenchment. (_See the
profile p p._) They prolonged their works towards the west as far as
_y_; beyond that, the heights presented sufficient natural obstacles. We
may thus estimate that, from Cologny to the mountain of Le Vuache, the
Romans executed from 1,600 to 1,700 mètres of retrenchments.
To sum up: the works executed on five principal points, between Geneva
and the Jura, represent a total length of about 5,000 mètres, that is,
less than the sixth part of the development of the course of the Rhone.
Admitting that Cæsar had at his disposal 10,000 men, we may suppose that
he distributed them in the following manner:--3,000 men on the heights
of Avully, his head-quarters; 2,500 at Geneva; 1,000 on the plateau of
Aire-la-Ville; 2,000 at Chancy; and 1,500 on the plateau of Cologny.
These 10,000 men might be concentrated: in two hours, on the heights
between Aire-la-Ville and Cartigny; in three hours, on the heights of
Avully; in three hours and a half, on the plateau of Chancy; in three
hours and a half, these troops, with the exception of those encamped at
Geneva, might be brought together between Cologny and the fort of
L’Ecluse. It would require five hours to carry the detachment from
Geneva thither.
The detachments mentioned above, with the exception of that of Geneva,
were established in what Cæsar calls the _castella_. These were
constructed on the heights, in the proximity of the retrenchments which
had to be defended--namely, at Aire-la-Ville, Avully, Chancy, and
Cologny. They consisted probably of earthen redoubts, capable of
containing a certain number of troops. They are represented by squares
in Plate 3.
Cæsar could reconnoitre every instant the march and designs of the
Helvetii, the heights of the left bank of the Rhone presenting a great
number of positions where it was easy to place advantageously posts of
observation. Commandant Stoffel has pointed out six, which are marked on
Plate 3. As it will be observed, the Helvetii, in crossing the Rhone,
could not be disturbed by darts thrown from the top of the
retrenchments, for these darts would not carry to the left bank of the
river. Now there exists at present, between this bank and the foot of
the heights in which these trenches were cut, flat ground of more or
less extent. Admitting, then, that the Rhone flowed nineteen centuries
ago in the same bed as at the present day, we may ask if the Romans did
not construct, in these low parts near the bank, ordinary retrenchments,
composed of a fosse and rampart. The excavations undertaken by the
Commandant Stoffel have revealed everywhere, in these plains, the
existence of ground formed by alluvium, which would lead us to believe
that the Rhone once covered them. However, even if at that epoch these
little plains had been already uncovered, either wholly or in part, we
can hardly suppose that Cæsar would have raised works there, since the
heights situated in the rear permitted him, with less labour, to create
a more redoubtable defence--that of the trenches opened along the
crests. As we see, the obstacle presented to the assailants began only
with these trenches, at the top of the slopes.
As to the vestiges which still appear to exist, they may be described as
follows. The slopes which the Romans fortified at Chancy, from _k_ to
_z_, and at Cologny, from _s_ to _y_, present, in the upper parts, in
some places, undulations of ground, the form of which denotes the work
of man. On the slope of Chancy, for instance, the ground presents a
projection, _i i_ (_see the profile h h_), very distinctly marked, and
having the remarkable peculiarity that it is about 11 feet high and 8 to
9 feet broad. Now, is it not evident that, if one of the fosses which
have been described should get filled up, either naturally, by the
action of time, or by the processes of agriculture, it would take
absolutely the form _i i_, with the dimensions just indicated? It would
not, therefore, be rash to consider these peculiarities of the ground,
such as _i i_, as traces of the Roman trenches.
We must further mention the projection of land _v r_, situated below
Cartigny. Its form is so regular, and so sharply defined, from the crest
to the foot of the _talus_, that it is difficult not to see in it the
vestiges of a work made by men’s hands.
It is easy to estimate approximately the time which it would have taken
Cæsar’s troops to construct the 5,000 mètres of trenches which extended,
at separate intervals, from Geneva to the Jura.
Let us consider, to fix our ideas, a ground A D V, inclined at 45
degrees, in which is to be made the trench A B C D. The great wall A B C
had 16 Roman feet in elevation: we will suppose that A B was inclined at
5 on 1, and that the small wall D C was 6 feet high.
The amount of rubbish removed would be as follows:--Section A B C D = 64
square feet, or, reducing it into square mètres, A B C D = 5 square
mètres 60 centimètres.
The mètre in length of the earth thrown out would give thus 5·60 cubic
mètres.
If we consider the facility of labour in the trench, since the earth has
only to be thrown down the slope, we shall see that two men can dig
three mètres in length of this trench in two days. Therefore, admitting
that the 10,000 men at Cæsar’s disposal had only been employed a quarter
of the time, from two to three days would have been sufficient for the
execution of the complete work.
[166] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 8.
[167] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 9.--The country of the Sequani comprised
the Jura, and reached to the Pas-de-l’Ecluse. (_See Plate 2_, Map of
Gaul.)
[168] It has been considered to have been an error of Cæsar to place the
Santones in the proximity of the Tolosates: modern researchers have
proved that the two peoples were not more than thirty or forty leagues
from each other.
[169] Several authors have stated wrongly that Cæsar went into Illyria;
he informs us himself (_De Bello Gallico_, III. 7) that he went thither
for the first time in the winter of 698.
[170] We believe, with General de Gœler, from the itinerary marked on
the Peutingerian table, that the troops of Cæsar passed by Altinum
(_Altino_), Mantua, Cremona, Laus Pompei (_Lodi Vecchio_), Pavia, and
Turin; but, after quitting this last place, we consider that they
followed the route of Fenestrella and Ocelum. Thence they directed their
march across the Cottian Alps, by Cesena and Brigantium (_Briançon_);
then, following the road indicated by the Theodosian table, which
appears to have passed along the banks of the Romanche, they proceeded
to Cularo (_Grenoble_), on the frontier of the Vocontii, by Stabatio
(_Chahotte_ or _Le Monestier_, Hautes-Alpes), Durotineum
(_Villards-d’Arenne_), Melloseeum (_Misoen_ or _Bourg-d’Oysans_, Isère),
and Catorissium (_Bourg-d’Oysans_ or _Chaource_, Isère).
[171] “Locis superioribus occupatis.” (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 10.)
[172] There is difference of opinion as to the site of Ocelum. The
following remark has been communicated to me by M.E. Celesia, who is
preparing a work on ancient Italy: _Ocelum_ only meant, in the ancient
Celtic or Iberian language, _principal passage_. We know that, in the
Pyrenees, these passages were called _ports_. There existed places of
the name of _Ocelum_, in the Alps, in Gaul, and as far as Spain.
(Ptolemy, II. 6.)--The itineraries found in the baths of Vicarello
indicate, between Turin and Susa, an _Ocelum_, which appears to us to
have been that of which Cæsar speaks; there was a place similarly named
in Maurienne, on the left bank of the Arc, at an equal distance from the
source of that river and the town of Saint-Jean; it is now _Usseglio_.
There was another in the valley of the Lanzo, on the left bank of the
Gara, from which appears to be derived the name of Garaceli or
Graioceli; it was called _Ocelum Lanciensium_. The Ocelum of Cæsar,
according to M. Celesia, who adopts the opinion of D’Anville, was called
_Ocelum ad Clusonem fluvium_; it was situated in the valley of the
Pragelatto, on the road leading from Pignerol to the defile of
Fenestrella. This place has continued to preserve its primitive name of
_Ocelum_, _Occelum_, _Oxelum_, _Uxelum_ (_Charta Adeladis_, an. 1064),
whence by corruption its modern name of _Usseau_. According to this
hypothesis, Cæsar would have passed from the valley of Chiusone into
that of Pragelatto, and thence, by Mount Genèvre, to Briançon, in order
to arrive among the Vocontii.--Polyænus (_Stratag._, VIII. xxiii. 2)
relates that Cæsar took advantage of a mist to escape the mountaineers.
[173] “Segusiavi sunt trans Rhodanum primi.” (_De Bello Gallico_, I.
10.) It is to be supposed that there existed a bridge on the Rhone, near
Lyons.
[174] Cæsar had deferred his reply till the Ides of April (April the
8th). If it were then decided to bring the legions from Aquileia, the
time necessary to bring them would have been as follows:
6 days employed by the couriers to proceed from Geneva to Aquileia.
This time does not appear to us too short, since Cæsar had employed
8 days to go from Rome to Geneva, and that the distance from Geneva
to Aquileia is only 1,000 kilomètres, while it is 1,200 from Geneva
to Rome;
8 days to assemble the legions--in 581, it required only eleven
days to enroll four legions (Titus Livius, XLIII. 45);
28 days from Aquileia to Ocelum (_Usseau_) (681 kilom.)reckoning 24
kilomètres for a day’s march;
6 days’ halts;
7 days from Ocelum to Grenoble (174 kilom.) (_De Bello Gallico_, I.
10);
5 days from Grenoble to Lyons (126 kilom.)
--
60
According to this reckoning, Cæsar required 60 days, reckoning from the
moment when he decided on this course, to transport his legions from
Aquileia to Lyons; that is to say, if he sent, as is probable, couriers
on the 8th of April, the day he refused the passage to the Helvetii, the
head of his column arrived at Lyons towards the 7th of June.
[175] To estimate the volume and weight represented by the provisions
for three months for _three hundred and sixty-eight thousand_ persons of
both sexes and of all ages, let us allow that the ration of food was
small, and consisted, we may say, only in a reserve of meal, _trium
mensium molita cibaria_, at an average of ¾ of a pound (¾ of a pound of
meal gives about a pound of bread); at this rate, the Helvetii must have
carried with them 24,840,000 pounds, or 12,420,000 kilogrammes of meal.
Let us allow also that they had great four-wheeled carriages, capable
each of carrying 2,000 kilogrammes, and drawn by four horses. The 100
kilogrammes of unrefined meal makes 2 cubic hectolitres; therefore,
2,000 kilogrammes of meal make 4 cubic mètres, so that this would lead
us to suppose no more than 4 cubic mètres as the average load for the
four-wheeled carriages. On our good roads in France, levelled and paved,
three horses are sufficient to draw, at a walking pace, during ten
hours, a four-wheeled carriage carrying 4,000 kilogrammes. It is more
than 1,300 kilogrammes per collar.
We suppose that the horses of the emigrants drew only 500 kilogrammes in
excess of the dead weight, which would give about 6,000 carriages and
24,000 draught animals to transport the three months’ provisions.
But these emigrants were not only provided with food, for they had also
certainly baggage. It appears to us no exaggeration to suppose that each
individual carried, besides his food, fifteen kilogrammes of baggage on
an average. We are thus left to add to the 6,000 provision carriages
about 2,500 other carriages for the baggage, which would make a total of
8,500 carriages drawn by 34,000 draught animals. We use the word animals
instead of horses, as at least a part of the teams would, no doubt, be
composed of oxen, the number of which would diminish daily, for the
emigrants would be led to use the flesh of these animals for their own
food.