In our opinion, we must not seek the place of
engagement
to
the east of Bibracte, for the Helvetii, to go from the Lower Saône to
the Santones, must have passed to the west, and not to the east, of that
town.
the east of Bibracte, for the Helvetii, to go from the Lower Saône to
the Santones, must have passed to the west, and not to the east, of that
town.
Napoleon - History of Julius Caesar - b
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.
Such a column of 8,500 carriages, supposing them to march in file, one
carriage at a time, on a single road, could not occupy less than
_thirty-two_ leagues in length, if we reckon fifteen mètres to each
carriage. This remark explains the enormous difficulties the emigration
would encounter, and the slowness of its movements: we need, then, no
longer be astonished at the twenty days which it took three quarters of
the column to pass the Saône.
We have not comprised the provisions of grain for the animals
themselves: yet it is difficult to believe that the Helvetii, so
provident for their own wants, had neglected to provide for those of
their beasts, and that they had reckoned exclusively for their food on
the forage they might find on the road.
[176] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 11.
[177] It is an error to translate _Arar, quod per fines Æduorum et
Sequanorum in Rhodamam influit_, by the words, “the Saône, which forms
the common boundary line of the Ædui and the Sequani. ” Cæsar always
understands by _fines_, territory, and not boundary line. He expresses
himself very differently when he speaks of a river separating
territories. (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 6, 83; VII. 5. ) The expression _per
fines_ thus confirms the supposition that the territories of these two
peoples extended on both sides of the Saône. (_See Plate 2. _)
[178] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 12. --The excavations, carried on in 1862
between Trévoux and Riottier, on the plateaux of La Bruyère and
Saint-Bernard, leave no doubt of the place of this defeat. They revealed
the existence of numerous sepulchres, as well Gallo-Roman as Celtic. The
tumuli furnished vases of coarse clay, and many fragments of arms in
silex, ornaments in bronze, iron arrow-heads, fragments of sockets.
These sepultures are some by incineration, others by inhumation. In the
first, the cremation had nowhere been complete, which proves that they
had been burnt hastily, and excludes all notion of an ordinary cemetery.
Two common fosses were divided each into two compartments, one of which
contained cinders, the other human skeletons, thrown in pell-mell,
skeletons of men, women, and children. Lastly, numerous country ovens
line, as it were, the road followed by the Helvetii. These ovens, very
common at the foot of the abrupt hills of Trévoux, Saint-Didier, Frans,
Jassans, and Mizérieux, are found again on the left bank of the Ain and
as far as the neighbourhood of Ambronay.
[179] Cæsar declares, on two different occasions, the fixed design of
the Helvetii to establish themselves in the country of the Santones (I.
9 and 11), and Titus Livius confirms this fact in these words: “Cæsar
Helvetios, gentem vagam, domuit, quæ, sedem quærens, in provinciam
Cæsaris Narbonem iter facere volebat. ” (_Epitome_, CIII. ) Had they, for
the execution of this project, the choice between several roads (the
word “road” being taken here in the general sense)? Some authors, not
considering the topography of France, have believed that, to go to the
Santones, the Helvetii should have marched by the shortest line, from
east to west, and passed the Loire towards Roanne. But they would have
had first to pass, in places almost impassable, the mountains which
separate the Saône from the Loire, and, had they arrived there, they
would have found their road barred by another chain of mountains, that
of Le Forez, which separates the Loire from the Allier.
The only means of going from the Lower Saône into Saintonge consists in
travelling at first to the north-west towards the sources of the
Bourbince, where is found the greatest depression of the chain of
mountains which separates the Saône from the Loire, and marching
subsequently to the west, to descend towards the latter river. This is
so true, that at an epoch very near to our own, before the construction
of the railways, the public conveyances, to go from Lyons to La
Rochelle, did not pass by Roanne, but took the direction to the
north-west, to Autun, and thence to Nevers, in the valley of the Loire.
We understand, in exploring this mountainous country, why Cæsar was
obliged to confine himself to pursuing the Helvetii, without being ever
able to attack them. We cannot find a single point where he could have
gained upon them by rapidity of movement, or where he could execute any
manœuvre whatever.
[180] The Romans used little precision in the division of time.
Forcellini (_Lex. _, voce _Hora_) refers to Pliny and Censorinus. He
remarks that the day--that is, the time between the rising and setting
of the sun--was divided into twelve parts, _at all seasons of the year_,
and the night the same, from which it would result that in summer the
hours of the day were longer than in winter, and _vice versa_ for the
nights. --Galenus (_De San. Tuend. _, VI. 7) observed that at Rome the
longest days were equal to fifteen equinoctial hours. Now, these fifteen
hours only reckoning for twelve, it happened that towards the solstice
each hour was more than a quarter longer than towards the equinox. This
remark was not new, for it is found in Plautus. One of his personages
says to a drunkard: “Thou wilt drink four good harvests of Massic wine
in an hour! ” “Add,” replied the drunkard, “in an hour of winter. ”
(Plautus, _Pseudolus_, v. I, 302, edit. Ritschl. )--Vegetius says that
the soldier ought to make twenty miles in five hours, and notes that he
speaks of hours in summer, which at Rome, according to the foregoing
calculation, would be equivalent to six hours and a quarter towards the
equinox. (Vegetius, _Mil. _, I. 9. )
Pliny (_Hist. Nat. _, VII. 60) remarks that, “at the time when the Twelve
Tables were compiled, the only divisions of time known were the rising
and setting of the sun; and that, according to the statement of Varro,
the first public solar dial was erected near the rostra, on a column, by
M. Valerius Messala, who brought it from Catania in 491, thirty years
after the one ascribed to Papirius; and that it was in 595 that Scipio
Nasica, the colleague of M. Popilius Lænas, divided the hours of night
and day, by means of a clepsydra or water-clock, which he consecrated
under a covered building. ”
Censorinus (_De Die Natali_, xxiii. , a book dated in the year 991 of
Rome, or 338 A. D. ) repeats, with some additions, the details given by
Pliny. “There is,” he says, “the _natural_ day and the _civil_ day. The
first is the time which passes between the rising and setting of the
sun; on the contrary, the night begins with the setting and ends with
the rising of the sun. The _civil_ day comprises a revolution of the
heaven--that is, a true day and a true night; so that when one says that
a person has lived thirty days, we must understand that he has lived the
same number of nights.
“We know that the day and the night are each divided into twelve hours.
The Romans were three hundred years before they were acquainted with
hours. The word _hour_ is not found in the Twelve Tables. They said in
those times, ‘before or after mid-day. ’ Others divided the day, as well
as the night, into four parts--a practice which is preserved in the
armies, where they divide the night into four watches. ” Upon these and
other data, M. Le Verrier has had the goodness to draw up a table, which
will be found at the end of the volume, and which indicates the increase
or decrease of the hours with the seasons, and the relationship of the
Roman _watches_ with our modern hours. (_See Appendix B. _)
[181] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 22.
[182] They reckon from Villefranche to Remilly about 170 kilomètres.
[183] Each soldier received twenty-five pounds of wheat every fortnight.
[184] It is generally admitted that Bibracte stood on the site of Autun,
on account of the inscription discovered at Autun in the seventeenth
century, and now preserved in the cabinet of antiquities at the
Bibliothèque Impériale. Another opinion, which identifies Bibracte with
Mont Beuvray (a mountain presenting a great surface, situated thirteen
kilomètres to the west of Autun), had nevertheless already found, long
ago, some supporters. It will be remarked first that the Gauls chose for
the site of their towns, when they could, places difficult of access: in
broken countries, these were steep mountains (as Gergovia, Alesia,
Uxellodunum, &c. ); in flat countries, they were grounds surrounded by
marshes (such as Avaricum). The Ædui, according to this, would not have
built their principal town on the site of Autun, situated at the foot of
the mountains. It was believed that a plateau so elevated as that of
Mont Beuvray (its highest point is 810 mètres above the sea) could not
have been occupied by a great town. Yet the existence of eight or ten
roads, which lead to this plateau, deserted for so many centuries, and
some of which are in a state of preservation truly astonishing, ought to
have led to a contrary opinion. Let us add that recent excavations leave
no further room for doubt. They have brought to light, over an extent of
120 hectares, foundations of Gaulish towers, some round, others square;
of mosaics, of foundations of Gallo-Roman walls, gates, hewn stones,
heaps of roof tiles, a prodigious quantity of broken amphoræ, a
semicircular theatre, &c. . . . Everything, in fact, leads us to place
Bibracte on Mont Beuvray: the striking resemblance of the two names, the
designation of Φροὑριον, which Strabo gives to Bibracte, and even the
vague and persistent tradition which, prevailing among the inhabitants
of the district, points to Mont Beuvray as a centre of superstitious
regard.
[185] The cavalry was divided into _turmæ_, and the _turma_ into three
decuries of ten men each.
[186] The word _sarcinæ_, the original sense of which is baggage or
burthens, was employed sometimes to signify the bundles carried by the
soldiers (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 17), sometimes for the heavy baggage
(_De Bello Civili_, I, 81). Here we must take _sarcinæ_ as comprising
both. This is proved by the circumstance that the six legions of the
Roman army were on the hill. Now, if Cæsar had sent the heavy baggage
forward, towards Bibracte, as General de Gœler believes, he would have
sent with it, as an escort, the two legions of the new levy, as he did,
the year following, in the campaign against the Nervii. (_De Bello
Gallico_, II. 19. )
[187] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 24. --In the phalanx, the men of the first
rank covered themselves with their bucklers, overlapping one another
before them, while those of the other ranks held them horizontally over
their heads, arranged like the tiles of a roof.
[188] According to Plutarch (_Cæsar_, 20), he said, “I will mount on
horseback when the enemy shall have taken flight. ”
[189] The _pilum_ was a sort of javelin thrown by the hand: its total
length was from 1·70 to 2 mètres; its head was a slender flexible blade
from 0·60 to 1 mètre long, weighing from 300 to 600 grammes, terminating
in a part slightly swelling, which sometimes formed a barbed point.
The shaft, sometimes round, sometimes square, had a diameter of from 25
to 32 millimètres. It was fixed to the head by ferules, or by pegs, or
by means of a socket.
Such are the characteristics presented by the fragments of _pila_ found
at Alise. They answer in general to the descriptions we find in Polybius
(VI. 28), in Dionysius (V. 46), and in Plutarch (_Marius_). _Pila_ made
on the model of those found at Alise, and weighing with their shaft from
700 grammes to 1·200 kilog. , have been thrown to a distance of 30 and 40
mètres: we may therefore fix at about 25 mètres the average distance to
which the _pilum_ carried.
[190] _Latere aperto_, the right side, since the buckler was carried on
the left arm. We read, indeed, in Titus Livius: “Et cum in latus
dextrum, quod parebat, Numidæ jacularentur, translatis in dextrum
scutis,” &c. (XXII. 50. )
[191] Dio Cassius (XXXVIII. 33) says on this subject that “the Helvetii
were not all on the field of battle, on account of their great number,
and of the haste with which the first had made the attack. Suddenly
those who had remained in the rear came to attack the Romans, when they
were already occupied in pursuing the enemy. Cæsar ordered his cavalry
to continue the pursuit; with his legions, he turned against the new
assailants. ”
[192] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 20.
[193] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 26. --Till now the field of battle where
Cæsar defeated the Helvetii has not been identified. The site which we
have adopted, between Luzy and Chides, satisfies all the requirements of
the text of the “Commentaries. ” Different authors have proposed several
other localities; but the first cause of error in their reckonings
consists in identifying Bibracte with Autun, which we cannot admit; and
further, not one of these localities fulfils the necessary topographical
conditions.
In our opinion, we must not seek the place of engagement to
the east of Bibracte, for the Helvetii, to go from the Lower Saône to
the Santones, must have passed to the west, and not to the east, of that
town. Cussy-la-Colonne, where the field of battle is most generally
placed, does not, therefore, suit at all; and, moreover,
Cussy-la-Colonne is too near to the territory of the Lingones to require
four days for the Helvetii to arrive there after the battle.
[194] “He drove back this people into their country as a shepherd drives
back his flock into the fold. ” (Florus, II. x. 3. )
[195] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 29.
[196] Cæsar pursued the Helvetii, taking for auxiliaries about 20,000
Gaulish mountaineers. (Appian, _De Rebus Gallicis_, IV. 15, edit.
Schweigh. )
[197] Appian, _De Bello Celt. _, IV. i. 3.
[198] Tacitius (_Germania_, iv. 32. ) speaks of this custom of the German
horsemen of fighting on foot. Titus Livius (XLIV. 26) ascribes this
practice to the Bastarni (the Moldavians. )
[199] Appian, _De Bello Celt. _, IV. i. 3.
[200] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 1, 2, 3. --General de Gœler, in our
opinion, extends the territory of the Ubii much too far to the south.
[201] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 25. --This statement agrees well enough
with the length of the Black Forest and the Odenwald, which is sixty
leagues.
[202] It is difficult to fix with precision the localities inhabited at
this period by the German peoples, for they were nearly all nomadic, and
were continually pressing one upon another. Cæsar, in his fourth book
_De Bello Gallico_ (cap. I), asserts that the Suevi never occupied the
same territory more than one year.
[203] Strabo (VII. , p. 244) relates, after Posidonius, that the Boii had
inhabited first the Hercynian forest; elsewhere he says (V. 177) that
the Boii established themselves among the Taurisci, a people dwelling
near Noricum. The same author (VII. 243) places the solitudes inhabited
by the Boii to the east of Vindelicia (_Southern Bavaria and Western
Austria_). Lastly, he says (IV. 471) that the Rhætii and the Vindelicii
are the neighbours of the Helvetii and the Boii. The Nemetes and the
Vangiones subsequently passed over to the left bank of the Rhine,
towards Worms and Spire, and the Ubii towards Cologne.
[204] Which formed the present Upper Alsace.
[205] We look upon it as certain, from the tenth chapter of Book IV. of
the “Commentaries,” that the Triboci occupied also the left bank of the
Rhine. We therefore naturally place among this German people the spot
where the army of Ariovistus was assembled. Moreover, to understand the
campaign about to be related, we must not seek this place, in the valley
of the Rhine, higher than Strasburg.
[206] In the speech which Dio Cassius puts in the mouth of Cæsar before
entering on the campaign against Ariovistus, he dilates upon the right
which the governor of the Roman province has to act according to
circumstances, and to take only his own advice. This speech is naturally
amplified and arranged by Dio Cassius, but the principal arguments must
be true. (Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 41. --_De Bello Gallico_, I. 33, 34, 35. )
[207] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 36.
[208] Since this information was given to Cæsar by the Treviri, it is
certain that the Suevi assembled on the Rhine, opposite or not far from
the country of the Treviri, and, in all probability, towards Mayence,
where the valley of the Maine presents a magnificent and easy opening
upon the Rhine.
[209] Between Tanlay and Gland, the Roman way is still called the _Route
de César_. (_See the map of the Etat-Major. _)
[210] To explain this rapid movement upon Besançon, we must suppose that
Cæsar, at the moment when he received news of the march of Ariovistus,
believed him to be as near Besançon as he was himself. In fact, Cæsar
might fear that during the time the news had taken to reach him, the
German king, who had already advanced three days’ journey out of his
territory, might have arrived in the neighbourhood of Mulhausen or
Cernay. Now Cæsar was at Arc-en-Barrois, 130 kilomètres from Besançon,
and the distance from this latter town to Cernay is 125 kilomètres.
[211] The “Commentaries” give here the erroneous number DC: the breadth
of the isthmus which the Doubs forms at Besançon cannot have undergone
any sensible variation; it is at present 480 mètres, or 1,620 Roman
feet. The copyists have, no doubt, omitted an M before DC.
[212] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 38.
[213] “ . . . qui ex urbe, amicitiæ causa, Cæsarem secuti, non magnum in
re militari usum habebant. ” (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 39. )--We see in the
subsequent wars Appius repairing to Cæsar to obtain appointments of
military tribunes, and Cicero recommending for the same grade several
persons, among others, M. Curtius, Orfius, and Trebatius. “I have asked
him for a tribuneship for M. Curtius. ” (_Epist. ad Quint. _, II. 15;
_Epist. Famil. _, VII. 5, a letter to Cæsar. ) Trebatius, though a bad
soldier, was treated with kindness, and at once appointed a military
tribune. “I wonder that you despise the advantages of the tribuneship,
especially since they have allowed you to dispense with the fatigues of
the military service. ” (Cicero, _Epist. Famil. _, VII. 8. )--“Resign
yourself to the military service, and remain. ” (Cicero, _Epist. Famil. _,
VII. 11. )--Trebatius appeared little satisfied, complained of the
severity of the service, and, when Cæsar passed into Britain, he
prudently remained on the Continent.
[214] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 36.
[215] This shows that then, in Italy, a great number of slaves were
Germans.
[216] This Latin phrase indicated the putting the troops in march.
[217] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 41.
[218] There has been much discussion on the meaning of the words
_millium amplius quinquaginta circuitu_. Some pretend that the number of
fifty miles means the whole distance, and that thus Cæsar would have
taken seven days to travel fifty miles, which would make about seven
kilomètres a day: this supposition is inadmissible. Others pretend, on
the contrary, that we must add fifty miles to the direct distance. This
last interpretation is refuted by a passage in the “Commentaries” (_De
Bello Civili_, I. 64). We read there, _Ac tantum fuit in militibus
studii, ut, millium vi. ad iter addito circuito_, &c. This shows that
when Cæsar means to speak of a turn of road, to be added to the total
length of the route, he is careful to indicate it. We consider it more
simple, therefore, to admit that the fifty miles are only a part of the
distance performed during the seven days’ march; that is, that after
making a circular _détour_ of fifty miles, which required three or four
days, Cæsar had still to march some time before he met the enemy,
following the direct road from Besançon to the Rhine. The study of the
ground completely justifies this view, for it was sufficient for Cæsar
to make a circuit of fifty miles (or seventy-five kilomètres) to turn
the mass of mountains which extends from Besançon to Montbéliard.
[219] It is probable that, during the negotiations, Ariovistus had
approached nearer to the Roman camp, in order to facilitate
intercommunication; for, if he had remained at a distance of thirty-six
kilomètres from Cæsar, we should be obliged to admit that the German
army, which subsequently advanced towards the Roman camp, in a single
day, to within nine kilomètres, had made a march of twenty-five
kilomètres at least, which is not probable when we consider that it
dragged after it wagons and women and children.
[220] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 42.
[221] _Planities erat magna, et in ea tumulus terrenus satis
grandis_. . . . (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 43)--This phrase would be
sufficient itself to prove that the encounter of the two armies took
place in the plains of Upper Alsace. We may ask how, in spite of a text
so explicit, different writers should have placed the field of battle in
the mountains of the Jura, where there is nowhere to be found a plain of
any extent. It is only at Mulhausen, to the north of the Doller, that
the vast plain of the valley of the Rhine opens.
Cæsar employs three times the word _tumulus_ to designate the eminence
on which his interview with Ariovistus took place, and he never calls it
_collis_. Is it not evident from this that we must consider this
_tumulus_ as a rounded knoll, insulated in the plain? Now it is to be
considered that the plain which extends to the north of the Doller,
between the Vosges and the Rhine, contains a rather large number of
small rounded eminences, to which the word _collis_ would not apply, and
which the word _knoll_ or _tumulus_ perfectly describes. The most
remarkable of these are situated, one near Feldkirch, the other between
Wittenheim and Ensisheim. We may suppose that the interview took place
on one of these knolls, marked 231 on Plate 6.
General de Gœler has adopted as the place of the interview an eminence
which rises on the left bank of the Little Doller, to the north of the
village of Aspach-le-Bas. Cæsar would have called this eminence
_collis_, for it is rather extensive, and, by its elongated form, but
not rounded, does not at all represent to the eye what is commonly
called a _knoll_ or _tumulus_; moreover, contrary to the text, this
elevation is not, properly speaking, in the plain. It is only separated
from the hills situated to the south by a brook, and the plain begins
only from its northern slope.
[222] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 47.
[223] It is not unworthy of remark that Cæsar’s communications with the
Leuci and the Lingones remained open. We have seen that, in his address
to the troops at Besançon, he reckoned on obtaining from these peoples a
part of his supplies.
[224] Tacitus (_Germania_, VI. 32) and Titus Livius (XLIV. 26) speak of
this method of fighting employed by the Germans.
[225] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 50. --The predictions of these priestesses,
who pretended to know the future by the noise of waters and by the
vortexes made by the streams in rivers, forbade their giving battle
before the new moon. (Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 21. )
[226] “Having skirmished opposite their retrenchments and the hills on
which they were encamped, he exasperated and excited them to such a
degree of rage, that they descended and fought desperately. ” (Plutarch,
_Cæsar_, 21. )
[227] General de Gœler adopts this same field of battle, but he differs
from us in placing the Romans with their back to the Rhine. It would be
impossible to understand in this case how, after their defeat, the
Germans would have been able to fly towards that river, Cæsar cutting
off their retreat; or how Ariovistus, reckoning upon the arrival of the
Suevi, should have put Cæsar between him and the re-inforcements he
expected.
[228] As the legions were six in number, the above phrase proves that in
this campaign Cæsar had one quæstor and five lieutenants. (_See Appendix
D. _)
[229] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49. --We have adopted the version of Dio
Cassius, as we cannot admit with Orosius that an army of more than
100,000 men could have formed only a single phalanx.
[230] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.
[231] Orosius expresses himself thus: “United in one phalanx, and their
heads protected by their bucklers, they attempted, thus covered, to
break the Roman lines; but some Romans, not less agile than bold, rushed
upon this sort of tortoise, grappled with the German soldiers body to
body, tore from them their shields, with which they were covered as with
scales, and stabbed them through the shoulders. ” (Orosius, VI. 7. )
[232] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.
[233] Appian, _De Bello Celt. _, IV. 1, 3.
[234] The manuscripts followed by the early editors of the
“Commentaries” gave some the number of 50 miles, others that of 5 miles.
We believe that Cæsar wrote 50 miles. This is proved by the very words
he employs, _neque prius fugere destiterunt_ . . . which could not be
applied to a flight of merely a few miles. Moreover, the testimony of
old writers confirms the number of 50 miles: Paulus Orosius relates that
the carnage extended over a space of 40 miles; Plutarch, over 300 or 400
stadia, that is, 35 or 50 miles, according to the editions; and J.
Celsus (Petrarch) (_De Vita J. Cæsaris_, I. , p. 40, edit. Lemaire) says,
_usque ad ripam Rheni fuga perpetua fuit_, a phrase in which the word
_perpetua_ is significative.
Modern writers, supposing erroneously that Cæsar had indicated the
distance, that is, the shortest line from the field of battle to the
Rhine, have discussed lengthily the number to be adopted. They have
overlooked the fact that the Latin text states, not exactly the distance
from the field of battle to the Rhine, but the length of the line of
retreat from the battle-field to the river. This line may have been
oblique towards the Rhine, for it is probable that the retreat of the
Germans lay down the valley of the Ill, which they had previously
ascended. We must therefore seek towards Rhinau the point where they
attempted to re-pass the river.
[235] According to Dio Cassius (XXXVIII. 50), Ariovistus, followed by
his cavalry, succeeded in escaping. Having reached the right bank, he
collected the fugitives; but he died shortly afterwards (_De Bello
Gallico_, V. 29), perhaps of his wounds.
[236] Appian. _De Bello Celt. _, IV. 1, 3. --Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 21.
[237] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 53. --The war against Ariovistus became the
subject of a poem by P. Terentius Varro Atacinus (_De Bello Sequanico_).
(Priscian, X. , p. 877, P. )
[238] “Inita æstate. ” (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 2. )--_Æstas_ according to
Forcellini, signifies the period comprised between the two equinoxes of
spring and autumn.
[239] See his biography, _Appendix D_.
[240] Strabo, IV. 171, V. 174.
[241] “In the year 642, the consul C.
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.
Such a column of 8,500 carriages, supposing them to march in file, one
carriage at a time, on a single road, could not occupy less than
_thirty-two_ leagues in length, if we reckon fifteen mètres to each
carriage. This remark explains the enormous difficulties the emigration
would encounter, and the slowness of its movements: we need, then, no
longer be astonished at the twenty days which it took three quarters of
the column to pass the Saône.
We have not comprised the provisions of grain for the animals
themselves: yet it is difficult to believe that the Helvetii, so
provident for their own wants, had neglected to provide for those of
their beasts, and that they had reckoned exclusively for their food on
the forage they might find on the road.
[176] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 11.
[177] It is an error to translate _Arar, quod per fines Æduorum et
Sequanorum in Rhodamam influit_, by the words, “the Saône, which forms
the common boundary line of the Ædui and the Sequani. ” Cæsar always
understands by _fines_, territory, and not boundary line. He expresses
himself very differently when he speaks of a river separating
territories. (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 6, 83; VII. 5. ) The expression _per
fines_ thus confirms the supposition that the territories of these two
peoples extended on both sides of the Saône. (_See Plate 2. _)
[178] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 12. --The excavations, carried on in 1862
between Trévoux and Riottier, on the plateaux of La Bruyère and
Saint-Bernard, leave no doubt of the place of this defeat. They revealed
the existence of numerous sepulchres, as well Gallo-Roman as Celtic. The
tumuli furnished vases of coarse clay, and many fragments of arms in
silex, ornaments in bronze, iron arrow-heads, fragments of sockets.
These sepultures are some by incineration, others by inhumation. In the
first, the cremation had nowhere been complete, which proves that they
had been burnt hastily, and excludes all notion of an ordinary cemetery.
Two common fosses were divided each into two compartments, one of which
contained cinders, the other human skeletons, thrown in pell-mell,
skeletons of men, women, and children. Lastly, numerous country ovens
line, as it were, the road followed by the Helvetii. These ovens, very
common at the foot of the abrupt hills of Trévoux, Saint-Didier, Frans,
Jassans, and Mizérieux, are found again on the left bank of the Ain and
as far as the neighbourhood of Ambronay.
[179] Cæsar declares, on two different occasions, the fixed design of
the Helvetii to establish themselves in the country of the Santones (I.
9 and 11), and Titus Livius confirms this fact in these words: “Cæsar
Helvetios, gentem vagam, domuit, quæ, sedem quærens, in provinciam
Cæsaris Narbonem iter facere volebat. ” (_Epitome_, CIII. ) Had they, for
the execution of this project, the choice between several roads (the
word “road” being taken here in the general sense)? Some authors, not
considering the topography of France, have believed that, to go to the
Santones, the Helvetii should have marched by the shortest line, from
east to west, and passed the Loire towards Roanne. But they would have
had first to pass, in places almost impassable, the mountains which
separate the Saône from the Loire, and, had they arrived there, they
would have found their road barred by another chain of mountains, that
of Le Forez, which separates the Loire from the Allier.
The only means of going from the Lower Saône into Saintonge consists in
travelling at first to the north-west towards the sources of the
Bourbince, where is found the greatest depression of the chain of
mountains which separates the Saône from the Loire, and marching
subsequently to the west, to descend towards the latter river. This is
so true, that at an epoch very near to our own, before the construction
of the railways, the public conveyances, to go from Lyons to La
Rochelle, did not pass by Roanne, but took the direction to the
north-west, to Autun, and thence to Nevers, in the valley of the Loire.
We understand, in exploring this mountainous country, why Cæsar was
obliged to confine himself to pursuing the Helvetii, without being ever
able to attack them. We cannot find a single point where he could have
gained upon them by rapidity of movement, or where he could execute any
manœuvre whatever.
[180] The Romans used little precision in the division of time.
Forcellini (_Lex. _, voce _Hora_) refers to Pliny and Censorinus. He
remarks that the day--that is, the time between the rising and setting
of the sun--was divided into twelve parts, _at all seasons of the year_,
and the night the same, from which it would result that in summer the
hours of the day were longer than in winter, and _vice versa_ for the
nights. --Galenus (_De San. Tuend. _, VI. 7) observed that at Rome the
longest days were equal to fifteen equinoctial hours. Now, these fifteen
hours only reckoning for twelve, it happened that towards the solstice
each hour was more than a quarter longer than towards the equinox. This
remark was not new, for it is found in Plautus. One of his personages
says to a drunkard: “Thou wilt drink four good harvests of Massic wine
in an hour! ” “Add,” replied the drunkard, “in an hour of winter. ”
(Plautus, _Pseudolus_, v. I, 302, edit. Ritschl. )--Vegetius says that
the soldier ought to make twenty miles in five hours, and notes that he
speaks of hours in summer, which at Rome, according to the foregoing
calculation, would be equivalent to six hours and a quarter towards the
equinox. (Vegetius, _Mil. _, I. 9. )
Pliny (_Hist. Nat. _, VII. 60) remarks that, “at the time when the Twelve
Tables were compiled, the only divisions of time known were the rising
and setting of the sun; and that, according to the statement of Varro,
the first public solar dial was erected near the rostra, on a column, by
M. Valerius Messala, who brought it from Catania in 491, thirty years
after the one ascribed to Papirius; and that it was in 595 that Scipio
Nasica, the colleague of M. Popilius Lænas, divided the hours of night
and day, by means of a clepsydra or water-clock, which he consecrated
under a covered building. ”
Censorinus (_De Die Natali_, xxiii. , a book dated in the year 991 of
Rome, or 338 A. D. ) repeats, with some additions, the details given by
Pliny. “There is,” he says, “the _natural_ day and the _civil_ day. The
first is the time which passes between the rising and setting of the
sun; on the contrary, the night begins with the setting and ends with
the rising of the sun. The _civil_ day comprises a revolution of the
heaven--that is, a true day and a true night; so that when one says that
a person has lived thirty days, we must understand that he has lived the
same number of nights.
“We know that the day and the night are each divided into twelve hours.
The Romans were three hundred years before they were acquainted with
hours. The word _hour_ is not found in the Twelve Tables. They said in
those times, ‘before or after mid-day. ’ Others divided the day, as well
as the night, into four parts--a practice which is preserved in the
armies, where they divide the night into four watches. ” Upon these and
other data, M. Le Verrier has had the goodness to draw up a table, which
will be found at the end of the volume, and which indicates the increase
or decrease of the hours with the seasons, and the relationship of the
Roman _watches_ with our modern hours. (_See Appendix B. _)
[181] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 22.
[182] They reckon from Villefranche to Remilly about 170 kilomètres.
[183] Each soldier received twenty-five pounds of wheat every fortnight.
[184] It is generally admitted that Bibracte stood on the site of Autun,
on account of the inscription discovered at Autun in the seventeenth
century, and now preserved in the cabinet of antiquities at the
Bibliothèque Impériale. Another opinion, which identifies Bibracte with
Mont Beuvray (a mountain presenting a great surface, situated thirteen
kilomètres to the west of Autun), had nevertheless already found, long
ago, some supporters. It will be remarked first that the Gauls chose for
the site of their towns, when they could, places difficult of access: in
broken countries, these were steep mountains (as Gergovia, Alesia,
Uxellodunum, &c. ); in flat countries, they were grounds surrounded by
marshes (such as Avaricum). The Ædui, according to this, would not have
built their principal town on the site of Autun, situated at the foot of
the mountains. It was believed that a plateau so elevated as that of
Mont Beuvray (its highest point is 810 mètres above the sea) could not
have been occupied by a great town. Yet the existence of eight or ten
roads, which lead to this plateau, deserted for so many centuries, and
some of which are in a state of preservation truly astonishing, ought to
have led to a contrary opinion. Let us add that recent excavations leave
no further room for doubt. They have brought to light, over an extent of
120 hectares, foundations of Gaulish towers, some round, others square;
of mosaics, of foundations of Gallo-Roman walls, gates, hewn stones,
heaps of roof tiles, a prodigious quantity of broken amphoræ, a
semicircular theatre, &c. . . . Everything, in fact, leads us to place
Bibracte on Mont Beuvray: the striking resemblance of the two names, the
designation of Φροὑριον, which Strabo gives to Bibracte, and even the
vague and persistent tradition which, prevailing among the inhabitants
of the district, points to Mont Beuvray as a centre of superstitious
regard.
[185] The cavalry was divided into _turmæ_, and the _turma_ into three
decuries of ten men each.
[186] The word _sarcinæ_, the original sense of which is baggage or
burthens, was employed sometimes to signify the bundles carried by the
soldiers (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 17), sometimes for the heavy baggage
(_De Bello Civili_, I, 81). Here we must take _sarcinæ_ as comprising
both. This is proved by the circumstance that the six legions of the
Roman army were on the hill. Now, if Cæsar had sent the heavy baggage
forward, towards Bibracte, as General de Gœler believes, he would have
sent with it, as an escort, the two legions of the new levy, as he did,
the year following, in the campaign against the Nervii. (_De Bello
Gallico_, II. 19. )
[187] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 24. --In the phalanx, the men of the first
rank covered themselves with their bucklers, overlapping one another
before them, while those of the other ranks held them horizontally over
their heads, arranged like the tiles of a roof.
[188] According to Plutarch (_Cæsar_, 20), he said, “I will mount on
horseback when the enemy shall have taken flight. ”
[189] The _pilum_ was a sort of javelin thrown by the hand: its total
length was from 1·70 to 2 mètres; its head was a slender flexible blade
from 0·60 to 1 mètre long, weighing from 300 to 600 grammes, terminating
in a part slightly swelling, which sometimes formed a barbed point.
The shaft, sometimes round, sometimes square, had a diameter of from 25
to 32 millimètres. It was fixed to the head by ferules, or by pegs, or
by means of a socket.
Such are the characteristics presented by the fragments of _pila_ found
at Alise. They answer in general to the descriptions we find in Polybius
(VI. 28), in Dionysius (V. 46), and in Plutarch (_Marius_). _Pila_ made
on the model of those found at Alise, and weighing with their shaft from
700 grammes to 1·200 kilog. , have been thrown to a distance of 30 and 40
mètres: we may therefore fix at about 25 mètres the average distance to
which the _pilum_ carried.
[190] _Latere aperto_, the right side, since the buckler was carried on
the left arm. We read, indeed, in Titus Livius: “Et cum in latus
dextrum, quod parebat, Numidæ jacularentur, translatis in dextrum
scutis,” &c. (XXII. 50. )
[191] Dio Cassius (XXXVIII. 33) says on this subject that “the Helvetii
were not all on the field of battle, on account of their great number,
and of the haste with which the first had made the attack. Suddenly
those who had remained in the rear came to attack the Romans, when they
were already occupied in pursuing the enemy. Cæsar ordered his cavalry
to continue the pursuit; with his legions, he turned against the new
assailants. ”
[192] Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 20.
[193] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 26. --Till now the field of battle where
Cæsar defeated the Helvetii has not been identified. The site which we
have adopted, between Luzy and Chides, satisfies all the requirements of
the text of the “Commentaries. ” Different authors have proposed several
other localities; but the first cause of error in their reckonings
consists in identifying Bibracte with Autun, which we cannot admit; and
further, not one of these localities fulfils the necessary topographical
conditions.
In our opinion, we must not seek the place of engagement to
the east of Bibracte, for the Helvetii, to go from the Lower Saône to
the Santones, must have passed to the west, and not to the east, of that
town. Cussy-la-Colonne, where the field of battle is most generally
placed, does not, therefore, suit at all; and, moreover,
Cussy-la-Colonne is too near to the territory of the Lingones to require
four days for the Helvetii to arrive there after the battle.
[194] “He drove back this people into their country as a shepherd drives
back his flock into the fold. ” (Florus, II. x. 3. )
[195] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 29.
[196] Cæsar pursued the Helvetii, taking for auxiliaries about 20,000
Gaulish mountaineers. (Appian, _De Rebus Gallicis_, IV. 15, edit.
Schweigh. )
[197] Appian, _De Bello Celt. _, IV. i. 3.
[198] Tacitius (_Germania_, iv. 32. ) speaks of this custom of the German
horsemen of fighting on foot. Titus Livius (XLIV. 26) ascribes this
practice to the Bastarni (the Moldavians. )
[199] Appian, _De Bello Celt. _, IV. i. 3.
[200] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 1, 2, 3. --General de Gœler, in our
opinion, extends the territory of the Ubii much too far to the south.
[201] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 25. --This statement agrees well enough
with the length of the Black Forest and the Odenwald, which is sixty
leagues.
[202] It is difficult to fix with precision the localities inhabited at
this period by the German peoples, for they were nearly all nomadic, and
were continually pressing one upon another. Cæsar, in his fourth book
_De Bello Gallico_ (cap. I), asserts that the Suevi never occupied the
same territory more than one year.
[203] Strabo (VII. , p. 244) relates, after Posidonius, that the Boii had
inhabited first the Hercynian forest; elsewhere he says (V. 177) that
the Boii established themselves among the Taurisci, a people dwelling
near Noricum. The same author (VII. 243) places the solitudes inhabited
by the Boii to the east of Vindelicia (_Southern Bavaria and Western
Austria_). Lastly, he says (IV. 471) that the Rhætii and the Vindelicii
are the neighbours of the Helvetii and the Boii. The Nemetes and the
Vangiones subsequently passed over to the left bank of the Rhine,
towards Worms and Spire, and the Ubii towards Cologne.
[204] Which formed the present Upper Alsace.
[205] We look upon it as certain, from the tenth chapter of Book IV. of
the “Commentaries,” that the Triboci occupied also the left bank of the
Rhine. We therefore naturally place among this German people the spot
where the army of Ariovistus was assembled. Moreover, to understand the
campaign about to be related, we must not seek this place, in the valley
of the Rhine, higher than Strasburg.
[206] In the speech which Dio Cassius puts in the mouth of Cæsar before
entering on the campaign against Ariovistus, he dilates upon the right
which the governor of the Roman province has to act according to
circumstances, and to take only his own advice. This speech is naturally
amplified and arranged by Dio Cassius, but the principal arguments must
be true. (Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 41. --_De Bello Gallico_, I. 33, 34, 35. )
[207] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 36.
[208] Since this information was given to Cæsar by the Treviri, it is
certain that the Suevi assembled on the Rhine, opposite or not far from
the country of the Treviri, and, in all probability, towards Mayence,
where the valley of the Maine presents a magnificent and easy opening
upon the Rhine.
[209] Between Tanlay and Gland, the Roman way is still called the _Route
de César_. (_See the map of the Etat-Major. _)
[210] To explain this rapid movement upon Besançon, we must suppose that
Cæsar, at the moment when he received news of the march of Ariovistus,
believed him to be as near Besançon as he was himself. In fact, Cæsar
might fear that during the time the news had taken to reach him, the
German king, who had already advanced three days’ journey out of his
territory, might have arrived in the neighbourhood of Mulhausen or
Cernay. Now Cæsar was at Arc-en-Barrois, 130 kilomètres from Besançon,
and the distance from this latter town to Cernay is 125 kilomètres.
[211] The “Commentaries” give here the erroneous number DC: the breadth
of the isthmus which the Doubs forms at Besançon cannot have undergone
any sensible variation; it is at present 480 mètres, or 1,620 Roman
feet. The copyists have, no doubt, omitted an M before DC.
[212] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 38.
[213] “ . . . qui ex urbe, amicitiæ causa, Cæsarem secuti, non magnum in
re militari usum habebant. ” (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 39. )--We see in the
subsequent wars Appius repairing to Cæsar to obtain appointments of
military tribunes, and Cicero recommending for the same grade several
persons, among others, M. Curtius, Orfius, and Trebatius. “I have asked
him for a tribuneship for M. Curtius. ” (_Epist. ad Quint. _, II. 15;
_Epist. Famil. _, VII. 5, a letter to Cæsar. ) Trebatius, though a bad
soldier, was treated with kindness, and at once appointed a military
tribune. “I wonder that you despise the advantages of the tribuneship,
especially since they have allowed you to dispense with the fatigues of
the military service. ” (Cicero, _Epist. Famil. _, VII. 8. )--“Resign
yourself to the military service, and remain. ” (Cicero, _Epist. Famil. _,
VII. 11. )--Trebatius appeared little satisfied, complained of the
severity of the service, and, when Cæsar passed into Britain, he
prudently remained on the Continent.
[214] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 36.
[215] This shows that then, in Italy, a great number of slaves were
Germans.
[216] This Latin phrase indicated the putting the troops in march.
[217] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 41.
[218] There has been much discussion on the meaning of the words
_millium amplius quinquaginta circuitu_. Some pretend that the number of
fifty miles means the whole distance, and that thus Cæsar would have
taken seven days to travel fifty miles, which would make about seven
kilomètres a day: this supposition is inadmissible. Others pretend, on
the contrary, that we must add fifty miles to the direct distance. This
last interpretation is refuted by a passage in the “Commentaries” (_De
Bello Civili_, I. 64). We read there, _Ac tantum fuit in militibus
studii, ut, millium vi. ad iter addito circuito_, &c. This shows that
when Cæsar means to speak of a turn of road, to be added to the total
length of the route, he is careful to indicate it. We consider it more
simple, therefore, to admit that the fifty miles are only a part of the
distance performed during the seven days’ march; that is, that after
making a circular _détour_ of fifty miles, which required three or four
days, Cæsar had still to march some time before he met the enemy,
following the direct road from Besançon to the Rhine. The study of the
ground completely justifies this view, for it was sufficient for Cæsar
to make a circuit of fifty miles (or seventy-five kilomètres) to turn
the mass of mountains which extends from Besançon to Montbéliard.
[219] It is probable that, during the negotiations, Ariovistus had
approached nearer to the Roman camp, in order to facilitate
intercommunication; for, if he had remained at a distance of thirty-six
kilomètres from Cæsar, we should be obliged to admit that the German
army, which subsequently advanced towards the Roman camp, in a single
day, to within nine kilomètres, had made a march of twenty-five
kilomètres at least, which is not probable when we consider that it
dragged after it wagons and women and children.
[220] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 42.
[221] _Planities erat magna, et in ea tumulus terrenus satis
grandis_. . . . (_De Bello Gallico_, I. 43)--This phrase would be
sufficient itself to prove that the encounter of the two armies took
place in the plains of Upper Alsace. We may ask how, in spite of a text
so explicit, different writers should have placed the field of battle in
the mountains of the Jura, where there is nowhere to be found a plain of
any extent. It is only at Mulhausen, to the north of the Doller, that
the vast plain of the valley of the Rhine opens.
Cæsar employs three times the word _tumulus_ to designate the eminence
on which his interview with Ariovistus took place, and he never calls it
_collis_. Is it not evident from this that we must consider this
_tumulus_ as a rounded knoll, insulated in the plain? Now it is to be
considered that the plain which extends to the north of the Doller,
between the Vosges and the Rhine, contains a rather large number of
small rounded eminences, to which the word _collis_ would not apply, and
which the word _knoll_ or _tumulus_ perfectly describes. The most
remarkable of these are situated, one near Feldkirch, the other between
Wittenheim and Ensisheim. We may suppose that the interview took place
on one of these knolls, marked 231 on Plate 6.
General de Gœler has adopted as the place of the interview an eminence
which rises on the left bank of the Little Doller, to the north of the
village of Aspach-le-Bas. Cæsar would have called this eminence
_collis_, for it is rather extensive, and, by its elongated form, but
not rounded, does not at all represent to the eye what is commonly
called a _knoll_ or _tumulus_; moreover, contrary to the text, this
elevation is not, properly speaking, in the plain. It is only separated
from the hills situated to the south by a brook, and the plain begins
only from its northern slope.
[222] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 47.
[223] It is not unworthy of remark that Cæsar’s communications with the
Leuci and the Lingones remained open. We have seen that, in his address
to the troops at Besançon, he reckoned on obtaining from these peoples a
part of his supplies.
[224] Tacitus (_Germania_, VI. 32) and Titus Livius (XLIV. 26) speak of
this method of fighting employed by the Germans.
[225] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 50. --The predictions of these priestesses,
who pretended to know the future by the noise of waters and by the
vortexes made by the streams in rivers, forbade their giving battle
before the new moon. (Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 21. )
[226] “Having skirmished opposite their retrenchments and the hills on
which they were encamped, he exasperated and excited them to such a
degree of rage, that they descended and fought desperately. ” (Plutarch,
_Cæsar_, 21. )
[227] General de Gœler adopts this same field of battle, but he differs
from us in placing the Romans with their back to the Rhine. It would be
impossible to understand in this case how, after their defeat, the
Germans would have been able to fly towards that river, Cæsar cutting
off their retreat; or how Ariovistus, reckoning upon the arrival of the
Suevi, should have put Cæsar between him and the re-inforcements he
expected.
[228] As the legions were six in number, the above phrase proves that in
this campaign Cæsar had one quæstor and five lieutenants. (_See Appendix
D. _)
[229] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49. --We have adopted the version of Dio
Cassius, as we cannot admit with Orosius that an army of more than
100,000 men could have formed only a single phalanx.
[230] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.
[231] Orosius expresses himself thus: “United in one phalanx, and their
heads protected by their bucklers, they attempted, thus covered, to
break the Roman lines; but some Romans, not less agile than bold, rushed
upon this sort of tortoise, grappled with the German soldiers body to
body, tore from them their shields, with which they were covered as with
scales, and stabbed them through the shoulders. ” (Orosius, VI. 7. )
[232] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.
[233] Appian, _De Bello Celt. _, IV. 1, 3.
[234] The manuscripts followed by the early editors of the
“Commentaries” gave some the number of 50 miles, others that of 5 miles.
We believe that Cæsar wrote 50 miles. This is proved by the very words
he employs, _neque prius fugere destiterunt_ . . . which could not be
applied to a flight of merely a few miles. Moreover, the testimony of
old writers confirms the number of 50 miles: Paulus Orosius relates that
the carnage extended over a space of 40 miles; Plutarch, over 300 or 400
stadia, that is, 35 or 50 miles, according to the editions; and J.
Celsus (Petrarch) (_De Vita J. Cæsaris_, I. , p. 40, edit. Lemaire) says,
_usque ad ripam Rheni fuga perpetua fuit_, a phrase in which the word
_perpetua_ is significative.
Modern writers, supposing erroneously that Cæsar had indicated the
distance, that is, the shortest line from the field of battle to the
Rhine, have discussed lengthily the number to be adopted. They have
overlooked the fact that the Latin text states, not exactly the distance
from the field of battle to the Rhine, but the length of the line of
retreat from the battle-field to the river. This line may have been
oblique towards the Rhine, for it is probable that the retreat of the
Germans lay down the valley of the Ill, which they had previously
ascended. We must therefore seek towards Rhinau the point where they
attempted to re-pass the river.
[235] According to Dio Cassius (XXXVIII. 50), Ariovistus, followed by
his cavalry, succeeded in escaping. Having reached the right bank, he
collected the fugitives; but he died shortly afterwards (_De Bello
Gallico_, V. 29), perhaps of his wounds.
[236] Appian. _De Bello Celt. _, IV. 1, 3. --Plutarch, _Cæsar_, 21.
[237] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 53. --The war against Ariovistus became the
subject of a poem by P. Terentius Varro Atacinus (_De Bello Sequanico_).
(Priscian, X. , p. 877, P. )
[238] “Inita æstate. ” (_De Bello Gallico_, II. 2. )--_Æstas_ according to
Forcellini, signifies the period comprised between the two equinoxes of
spring and autumn.
[239] See his biography, _Appendix D_.
[240] Strabo, IV. 171, V. 174.
[241] “In the year 642, the consul C.
