No More Learning

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

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

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

[212] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 38.

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

[214] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 36.

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

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

[217] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 41.

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

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

[220] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 42.

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

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

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

[222] _De Bello Gallico_, I. 47.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[230] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.

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

[232] Dio Cassius, XXXVIII. 49.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[239] See his biography, _Appendix D_.

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

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

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

[243] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[252] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 11.

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

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

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

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

[256] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 15.

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

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

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

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

[261] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 17.

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

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

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

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

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

[267] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 28.

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

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

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

[270] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 33.

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

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

[273] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 6

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

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

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

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

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

[279] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 40.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[284] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 41.

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

[286] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 17.

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

[288] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 19.

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

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

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

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

[293] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 27.

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

[295] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 44.

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

[297] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 29.

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

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

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

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

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

[303] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[310] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 20.

[311] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 4.

[312] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 13.

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

[314] Pliny, _Hist.