[341]
Diodorus
Siculus, V.
Napoleon - History of Julius Caesar - b
)
[278] We must not confound him with M. Junius Brutus, the assassin of
Cæsar. Decimus Junius Brutus was the adopted son of A. Postumius
Albinus. (See Drumann, IV. 9, and _Appendix D_. )
[279] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 40.
[280] We suppose, in this enumeration, that the legion of Galba,
cantoned the preceding winter among the Allobroges, had rejoined the
army.
[281] I borrow this interpretation of the Roman works from the very
instructive book of General de Gœler.
[282] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 13. --Strabo, IV. , p. 162.
[283] The fleet of the Veneti, superior to that of the Romans in number,
in the magnitude of their vessels, and in their rigging and sails, must
have issued from the river Auray by the Morbihan entrance to the gulf,
and met Brutus to fight him, instead of waiting for him at the head of
the bay, where retreat would be impossible. This follows from Cæsar’s
account: _ex portu profectæ, nostris adversæ constiterunt_. According to
the memoir by M. le Comte de Grandpré, a post-captain, inserted in the
_Recueil de la Société des Antiquaires de France_, tom. II. , 1820, the
wind must have been east or north-east, for it was towards the end of
the summer. It appears that these winds usually prevail at that period,
and that, when they have blown during the morning, there is a dead calm
towards the middle of the day: it is just what happened in this combat;
the calm came, probably, towards midday. It was necessary, indeed, that
the wind should be between the north and the east, to allow, on one hand
the Roman fleet to leave the Loire and sail towards the Point
Saint-Jacques, and, on the other, to permit the fleet of the Veneti to
quit the river Auray. These latter, in this position, could, in case of
defeat, take refuge in the Bay of Quiberon, or fly to the open sea,
where the Romans would not have dared to follow them.
With winds blowing from below, it matters not from what point, the
Romans could not have gone in search of their enemies, or the latter
come to meet them. Supposing that, in one tide, the Roman fleet had
arrived at the mouth of the Loire towards five o’clock in the morning;
it might have been towards ten o’clock, the moment when the battle
commenced, between Haedik and Sarzeau. Supposing similarly that, as
early as five o’clock in the morning, the movement of the Roman fleet
had been announced to the Veneti, they could, in five hours, have issued
from the river Auray, defiled by the entrance of the Morbihan, rallied
and advanced in order of battle to meet the Romans in the part of the
sea above described.
As to the place where Cæsar encamped, it is very probable, as we have
said, that it was on the heights of Saint-Gildas; for from thence he
could see the dispositions of the enemy, and perceive far off the
approach of his fleet. In case of check, the Roman galleys found, under
his protection, a place of refuge in the Vilaine. Thus, he had his rear
secured; rested upon the towns of the coast which he had taken; could
recall to him, if necessary, Titurius Sabinus; and lastly, could cross
the Vilaine, to place that river between him and his enemies. Placed, on
the contrary, on the other side of the Bay of Quiberon, he would have
been too much enclosed in an enemy’s country, and would have had none of
the advantages offered by the position of Saint-Gildas.
[284] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 41.
[285] We see, in fact, in Vegetius, that the word _falces_ was applied
to the head of a battering ram, armed with a point, and with a hook to
detach the stones from the walls. “Quæ (trabes) aut adunco præfigitur
ferro, et falx vocatur ab eo quod incurva est, ut de muro extrahat
lapides. ” (Vegetius, IV. 14. )
[286] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 17.
[287] This position is at the distance of seven kilomètres to the east
of Avranches. The vestiges still visible of Chastellier are probably
those of a camp made at a later period than this Gallic war, but we
think that Sabinus had established his camp on the same site.
[288] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 19.
[289] Cæsar, after having said, in the first book of his “Commentaries”,
that Aquitaine was one of the three parts of Gaul, states here that it
formed the third part by its extent and population, which is not
correct.
[290] Nicholas of Damascus (in _Athenæus, Deipn. _, VI. 249) writes in
this manner the name of King _Adiatomus_, and adds that the _soldurii_
were clothed in royal vestments.
[291] This combat is remarkable as being the only one in the whole war
in Gaul in which the Romans attack a fortified Gaulish camp.
[292] Of this number were the Tarbelli, The Bigerriones, The Ptiani, the
Vasates, the Tarusates, the Elusates, the Gaites, the Ausci, the
Garumni, the Sibusates, and the Cocosates.
[293] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 27.
[294] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, III. x. 6.
[295] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 44.
[296] Cæsar never entirely subjugated the north-west of Gaul. (See
Sallust, cited by Ammianus Marcellinus, XV. , 15. ) Still, under the reign
of Augustus, in 724 and 726, there were triumphs over the Morini.
[297] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 29.
[298] “In praetura, in consulatu præfectum fabrum detulit. ” (Cicero,
_Orat. pro Balbo_, 28. )
[299] Mamurra, a Roman knight, born at Formiæ. (Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _,
XXXVI. 7. )
[300] From Xanten to Nimeguen, for a length of fifty kilomètres, extends
a line of heights which form a barrier along the left bank of the Rhine.
All appearances would lead us to believe that the river flowed, in
Cæsar’s time, close at the foot of these heights; but now it has removed
from them, and at Emmerich, for instance, is at a distance of eight
kilomètres. This chain, the eastern slope of which is scarped, presents
only two passes; one by a large opening at Xanten itself, to the north
of the mountain called the Furstenberg; the other by a gorge of easy
access, opening at Qualburg, near Cleves. These two passes were so well
defined as the entries to Gaul in these regions, that, after the
conquest, the Romans closed them by fortifying the Furstenberg (_Castra
vetera_), and founding, on the two islands formed by the Rhine opposite
these entries, _Colonia Trajana_, now Xanten, and _Quadriburgium_, now
_Qualburg_. The existence of these isles facilitated at that time the
passage of the Rhine, and, in all probability, it was opposite these two
localities just named that the Usipetes and Tencteri crossed the river
to penetrate into Gaul.
[301] The account of this campaign is very obscure in the
“Commentaries. ” Florus and Dio Cassius add to the obscurities: the
first, by placing the scene of the defeat of the Usipetes and Tencteri
towards the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine; the second, by
writing that Cæsar came up with the Germans in the country of the
Treviri. Several authors have given to the account of these two
historians more credit than to that of Cæsar himself, and they give of
this campaign an explanation quite different from ours. General de
Gœler, among others, supposes that the whole emigration of the Germans
had advanced as far as the country of the Condrusi, where Cæsar came up
with them, and that he had driven them from west to east, into the angle
formed by the Moselle and the Rhine. From researches which were kindly
undertaken by M. de Cohausen, major in the Prussian army, and which have
given the same result as those of MM. Stoffel and De Locqueyssie, we
consider this explanation of the campaign as inadmissible. It would be
enough, to justify this assertion, to consider that the country situated
between the Meuse and the Rhine, to the south of Aix-la-Chapelle, is too
much broken and too barren to have allowed the German emigration,
composed of 430,000 individuals, men, women, and children, with wagons,
to move and subsist in it. Moreover, it contains no trace of ancient
roads; and if Cæsar had taken this direction, he must necessarily have
crossed the forest of the Ardennes, a circumstance of which he would not
have failed to inform us. Besides, is it not more probable that, on the
news of the approach of Cæsar, instead of directing their march towards
the Ubii, who were not favourable to them, the Germans, at first spread
over a vast territory, would have concentrated themselves towards the
most distant part of the fertile country on which they had seized--that
of the Menapii?
[302] The Ambivariti were established on the left bank of the Meuse, to
the west of Ruremonde, and to the south of the marshes of Peel.
[303] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 13.
[304] “Acie triplici instituta. ” Some authors have translated these
words by “the army was formed in three columns;” but Cæsar, operating in
a country which was totally uncovered and flat, and aiming at surprising
a great mass of enemies, must have marched in order of battle, which did
not prevent each cohort from being in column.
[305] Attacked unexpectedly in the afternoon, while they were sleeping.
(Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 48. )
[306] The study of the deserted beds of the Rhine leads us to believe
that the confluence of the Waal and the Meuse, which is at present near
Gorkum, was then much more to the east, towards Fort Saint-André. In
that case, Cæsar made no mistake in reckoning eighty miles from the
junction of the Waal and the Meuse to the mouth of the latter river.
[307] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 14, 15.
[308] The following reasons have led us to adopt Bonn as the point where
Cæsar crossed the Rhine:--
We learn from the “Commentaries” that in 699 he debouched in the country
of the Ubii, and that two years later it was a little above (_paulum
supra_) the first bridge that he established another, which joined the
territory of the Treviri with that of the Ubii. Now everything leads to
the belief that, in the first passage as in the second, the bridge was
thrown across between the frontiers of the same peoples; for we cannot
admit, with some authors, that the words _paulum supra_ apply to a
distance of several leagues. As to those who suppose that the passage
was effected at Andernach, because, changing with Florus the Meuse
(_Mosa_) into Moselle, they placed the scene of the defeat of the
Germans at the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine, we have given
the reasons for rejecting this opinion. We have endeavoured to prove, in
fact, that the battle against the Usipetes and the Tencteri had for its
theatre the confluence of the Meuse and the Rhine; and since, in
crossing this latter river, Cæsar passed from the country of the Treviri
into that of the Ubii, we must perceive that after his victory he must
necessarily have proceeded up the valley of the Rhine to go from the
territory of the Menapii to the Treviri, as far up as the territory of
the Ubii, established on the right bank.
This being admitted, it remains to fix, within the limits assigned to
these two last peoples, the most probable point of passage. Hitherto,
Cologne has been adopted; but, to answer to the data of the
“Commentaries,” Cologne appears to us to be much too far to the north.
In fact, in the campaign of 701, Cæsar, having started from the banks of
the Rhine, traversed the forest of the Ardennes from east to west,
passed near the Segni and the Condrusi, since they implored him to spare
their territory, and directed his march upon Tongres. If he had started
from Cologne, he would not have crossed the countries in question.
Moreover, in this same year, 2,000 Sicambrian cavalry crossed the Rhine
thirty miles below the bridge of the Roman army. Now, if this bridge had
been constructed at Cologne, the point of passage of the Sicambri,
thirty miles below, would have been at a very great distance from
Tongres, where, nevertheless, they seem to have arrived very quickly.
On the contrary, everything is explained if we adopt Bonn as the point
of passage. To go from Bonn to Tongres, Cæsar proceeded, as the text has
it, across the forest of the Ardennes; he passed through the country of
the Segni and Condrusi, or very near them; and the Sicambri, crossing
the Rhine thirty miles below Bonn, took the shortest line from the Rhine
to Tongres. Moreover, we cannot place Cæsar’s point of passage either
lower or higher than Bonn. Lower, that is, towards the north, the
different incidents related in the “Commentaries” are without possible
application to the theatre of the events; higher, towards the south, the
Rhine flows upon a rocky bed, where the piles could not have been driven
in, and presents, between the mountains which border it, no favourable
point of passage. We may add that Cæsar would have been much too far
removed from the country of the Sicambri, the chastisement of whom was
the avowed motive of his expedition.
Another fact deserves to be taken into consideration: that, less than
fifty years after Cæsar’s campaigns, Drusus, in order to proceed against
the Sicambri--that is, against the same people whom Cæsar intended to
combat--crossed the Rhine at Bonn. (Florus, IV. 12. )
[309] The following passage has given room for different
interpretations:--
“Hæc utraque insuper bipedalibus trabibus immissis, quantum eorum
tignorum junctura distabat, binis utrimque fibulis ab extrema parte
distinebantur; quibus disclusis atque in contrariam partem revinctis,
tanta erat operis firmitudo atque ea rerum natura, ut, quo major vis
aquæ se incitavisset, hoc arctius illigata tenerentur. ” (_De Bello
Gallico_, IV. 17. )
It has not been hitherto observed that the words _hæc utraque_ relate to
the two couples of one row of piles, and not to the two piles of the
same couple. Moreover, the words _quibus disclusis_, &c. , relate to
these same two couples, and not, as has been supposed, to _fibulis_.
[310] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 20.
[311] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 4.
[312] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 13.
[313] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, IV. 30, § 16.
[314] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, IV. 30, § 16. --Tacitus, _Agricola_, 10.
[315] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.
[316] Strabo, IV. , p. 199.
[317] _Agricola_, 12.
[318] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.
[319] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 13 and 14.
[320] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 20.
[321] _Annales_, XIV. 33.
[322] Although the greater number of manuscripts read _Cenimagni_, some
authors have made two names of it, the _Iceni_ and the _Cangi_.
[323] The _Anderida Silva_, 120 miles in length by 30 in breadth,
extended over the counties of Sussex and Kent, in what is now called the
_Weald_. (See Camden, _Britannia_, edit. Gibson, I. , col. 151, 195, 258,
edit. of 1753. )
[324] Diodorus Siculus, V. 21. --Tacitus, _Agricola_, 12.
[325] IV. , p. 200.
[326] _Agricola_, 11.
[327] Diodorus Siculus, V. 21.
[328] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 21.
[329] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.
[330] Strabo, IV. , p. 200.
[331] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.
[332] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, XXII. 1.
[333] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.
[334] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22.
[335] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22. --Strabo, IV. , p. 200.
[336] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.
[337] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 13.
[338] _Agricola_, 11.
[339] Strabo, IV. , p. 199.
[340] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.
[341] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22.
[342] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, IV. 30, § 16.
[343] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 36.
[344] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 16.
[345] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 12.
[346] Frontinus, _Stratagm. _, II. 3, 18. --Diodorus Siculus, V.
21. --Strabo, IV. , p. 200.
[347] The account on page 213 confirms this interpretation, which is
conformable to that of General Gœler.
[348] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 32 and 33.
[349] Strabo, IV. , p. 200.
[350] Strabo, IV. , p. 201.
[351] From what will be seen further on, each transport ship, on its
return, contained 150 men. Eighty ships could thus transport 12,000 men,
but since, reduced to sixty-eight, they were enough to carry back the
whole army to the continent, they can only have carried 10,200 men,
which was probably the effective force of the two legions. The eighteen
ships appropriated to the cavalry might transport 450 horses, at the
rate of twenty-five horses each ship.
[352] The port of Dover extended formerly from the site of the present
town, between the cliffs which border the valley of the Dour or of
Charlton. (_See Plate 17. _) Indeed, from the facts furnished by ancient
authors, and a geological examination of the ground, it appears certain
that once the sea penetrated into the land, and formed a creek which
occupied nearly the whole of the valley of Charlton. The words of Cæsar
are just justified: “Cujus loci hæc erat natura, atque ita montibus
angustis mare continebatur, uti ex locis superioribus in littus telum
adjici posset. ” (IV. 23. )
The proofs of the above assertion result from several facts related in
different notices on the town of Dover. It is there said that in 1784
Sir Thomas Hyde Page caused a shaft to be sunk at a hundred yards from
the shore, to ascertain the depth of the basin at a remote period; it
proved that the ancient bed of the sea had been formerly thirty English
feet below the present level of the high tide. In 1826, in sinking a
well at a place called _Dolphin Lane_, they found, at a depth of
twenty-one feet, a bed of mud resembling that of the present port, mixed
with the bones of animals and fragments of leaves and roots. Similar
detritus have been discovered in several parts of the valley. An ancient
chronicler, named Darell, relates that “Wilbred, King of Kent, built in
700 the church of St. Martin, the ruins of which are still visible near
the market-place, on the spot where formerly ships cast anchor. ”
The town built under the Emperors Adrian and Septimus Severus occupied a
part of the port, which had already been covered with sand; yet the sea
still entered a considerable distance inland. (_See Plate 17. _)
It would appear to have been about the year 950 that the old port was
entirely blocked up with the maritime and fluvial alluvium which have
been increasing till our day, and which at different periods have
rendered it necessary to construct the dykes and quays which have given
the port its present form.
[353] “Constat enim aditus insulæ esse munitos mirificis molibus. ”
(Cicero, _Epist. ad Atticum_, IV. 16. )
[354] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 51.
[355] The Emperor Julian (p. 70, edit. Lasius) makes Cæsar say that he
had been the first to leap down from the ship.
[356] It is in the text, _in scopulum vicinum insulæ_, which must be
translated by “a rock near the isle of Britain,” and not, as certain
authors have interpreted it, “a rock isolated from the continent. ”
(Valerius Maximus, III. ii. 23. )--In fact, these rocks, called _Malms_,
are distinctly seen at low water opposite the arsenal and marine
barracks at Deal.
[357] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 51.
[358] Cæsar himself had only carried three servants with him, as Cotta
relates. (Athenæus, _Deipnosophist. _, VI. 105. )
[359] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 53.
[360] At the battle of Arcola, in 1796, twenty-five horsemen had a great
influence on the issue of the day. (_Mémoires de Montholon, dictées de
Sainte-Hélène,_ II. 9. )
[361] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 36 and 37.
[362] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 38.
[363] Dio Cassius, XL. 1. --See Strabo, IV. , p. 162, edit. Didot.
[364] _De Bello Gallico_, V. I.
[365] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 56. XL. 1.
[366] This opinion has been already supported by learned archæologists.
I will cite especially M. Mariette; Mr. Thomas Lewin, who has written a
very interesting account of Cæsar’s invasions of England; and lastly, M.
l’Abbé Haigneré, archivist of Boulogne, who has collected the best
documents on this question.
[367] Strabo, IV. 6, p. 173.
[368] According to the Itinerary of Antoninus, the road started from
Bagacum (_Bavay_), and passed by Pons-Scaldis (_Escaut-Pont_), Turnacum
(_Tournay_), Viroviacum (_Werwick_), Castellum (_Montcassel, Cassel_),
Tarvenna (_Thérouanne_), and thence to Gesoriacum (_Boulogne_).
According to Mariette, medals found on the road demonstrate that it had
been made in the time of Agrippa; moreover, according to the same
Itinerary of Antoninus, a Roman road started from Bavay, and, by
Tongres, ended at the Rhine at Bonn. (See _Jahrbücher des Vereins von
Alterthums Freunden_, Heft 37, Bonn, 1864. Now, admitting that there had
been already under Augustus a road which united Boulogne with Bonn, we
understand the expression of Florus, who explains that Drusus amended
this road by constructing bridges on the numerous water-courses which it
crossed, _Bonnam et Gesoriacum pontibus junxit_. (Florus, IV. 12. )
[369] Suetonius, _Caligula_, 46. --The remains of the pharos of Caligula
were still visible a century ago.
[370] Suetonius, _Claudius_, 17.
[371] Ammianus Marcellinus, XX. 1.
[372] Ammianus Marcellinus, XX. 7, 8.
[373] Eumenius, _Panegyric of Constantinus Cæsar_, 14.
[374] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, cited by Mr. Lewin.
[375] “Qui tertia vigilia Morino solvisset a portu. ” (Florus, III. 10. )
[376] Strabo, IV. 5, p. 166.
[377] “Ultimos Gallicarum gentium Morinos, nec portu quam Gesoriacum
vocant quicquam notius habet. ” (Pomponius Mela, III. 2. )--“Μορινὡν
Γησοριακον ἑπἱνειον. ” (Ptolemy, II. ix. 3. )
[378] “Hæc [Britannia] abest a Gesoriaco Morinorum gentis litore proximo
trajectu quinquaginta M. ” (Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, IV. 30. )
[379] The camp of Labienus, during the second expedition, was, no doubt,
established on the site now occupied by the high town. From thence it
commanded the surrounding country, the sea, and the lower course of the
Liane.
[380] _Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire_, tom. IV. , I. 17.
[381] What is now called _Romney Marsh_ is the northern part of a vast
plain, bounded on the east and south by the sea, and on the west and
north by the line of heights at the foot of which the military canal has
been cut. It is difficult to determine what was the aspect of Romney
Marsh in the time of Cæsar. Nevertheless, the small elevation of the
plain above the level of the sea, as well as the nature of the soil,
lead us to conclude that the sea covered it formerly up to the foot of
the heights of Lymne, except at least in the part called
_Dymchurch-Wall_. This is a long tongue of land, on which are now raised
three forts and nine batteries, and which, considering its height above
the rest of the plain, has certainly never been covered by the sea.
These facts appear to be confirmed by an ancient chart in the Cottonian
collection in the British Museum.
Mr. Lewin appears to have represented as accurately as possible the
appearance of Romney Marsh in the time of Cæsar, in the plate which
accompanies his work. The part not covered by the sea extended, no
doubt, as he represents it, from the bay of Romney to near Hythe, where
it terminated in a bank of pebbles of considerable extent. But it
appears to us that it would have been difficult for the Roman army to
land on a bank of pebbles at the very foot of the rather steep heights
of Lymne. Mr. Lewin places the Roman army, in the first expedition, at
the foot of the heights, on the bank of pebbles itself, surrounded on
almost all sides by the sea. In the second expedition, he supposes it to
have been on the heights, at the village of Lymne; and, to explain how
Cæsar joined his fleet to the camp by retrenchments common to both, he
admits that this fleet was drawn on land as far as the slope of the
heights, and shut up in a square space of 300 mètres each side, because
we find there the ruins of an ancient castle called _Stutfall Castle_.
All this is hardly admissible.
[382] Word for word, this expression signifies that the ships set sail
four days after the arrival of the Romans in England. The Latin language
often employed the ordinal number instead of the cardinal number. Thus,
the historian Eutropius says, “Carthage was destroyed 700 years after it
was founded, _Carthago septingentesimo anno quam condita erat deleta
est_. ” Are we, in the phrase, _post diem quartum_, to reckon the day of
the arrival? --Virgil says, speaking of the seventeenth day, _septima
post decimam_. --Cicero uses the expression _post sexennium_ in the sense
of _six years_. It is evident that Virgil counts seven days after the
tenth. If the tenth was comprised in this number, the expression
_septima post decimam_ would signify simply the _sixteenth day_. On his
part, Cicero understands clearly the six years as a lapse of time which
was to pass, starting from the moment in which he speaks. Thus, the
_post diem quartum_ of Cæsar must be understood in the sense of four
days accomplished, without reckoning the day of landing.
[383] Titus Livius, XLIV. 37.
[384] We must now go back to the fourteenth day before the full moon,
that is, to the 17th of August, 699, to find a day on which high tide
took place at Dover towards midday.
[385] Mr. Lewin has stated that the country between Deal and Sandwich
produces no wheat. This assertion is tolerably true for the tongue of
marshy land which separates those two localities; but what does it
signify, since wheat grows in great quantities in all the part of the
county of Kent situated to the west of the coast which extends from the
South Foreland to Deal and Sandwich?
[386] It is almost impossible to fix with certainty the day when Cæsar
quitted Britain; we know only that it was a short time before the
equinox (_propinqua die æquinoxii_), which, according to the
calculations of M. Le Verrier, fell on the 26th of September, and that
the fleet started a little after midnight. If we admit a passage of nine
hours, with a favorable wind (_ipse idoneam tempestatem nactus_), as on
the return of the second expedition, Cæsar would have arrived at
Boulogne towards nine o’clock in the morning. As the fleet could not
enter the port until the tide was in, it is sufficient, to know
approximatively the date of Cæsar’s return, to seek what day in the
month of September, 699, there was high tide at that hour at Bolougne.
Now, in this port, the tide is always at its height towards nine o’clock
in the morning two or three days before full moon and before new moon;
therefore, since the full moon of the month of September, 699, took
place on the 14th, it must have been about the 11th or 12th of September
that Cæsar returned to Gaul. As to the two ships which were driven
farther down, Mr. Lewin (_Invasion of Britain by J. Cæsar_) explains
this accident in a very judicious manner. He states that we read in the
tide-tables of the English Admiralty the following recommendation: “In
approaching Boulogne when the tide is flowing in, great attention must
be paid, because the current, which, on the English side, drags a ship
towards the east, on the Boulogne side drags them, on the contrary,
towards the Somme. ” Nothing, then, is more natural than that the two
Roman transport ships should be driven ashore to the south of Boulogne.
[387] “It was there (the mouth of the Seine) that Cæsar established his
naval arsenal, when he passed over to that island (Britain. )” (Strabo,
II. 160. )
[388] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 3, 4.
[389] The Meldæ dwelt on the Marne, in the country around Meaux; and as
we have seen, according to Strabo, that Cæsar had established his naval
arsenal at the mouth of the Seine, there is nothing extraordinary in the
circumstance that some of the ships were built near Meaux. But it is not
reasonable to suppose, with some writers, that the Meldæ dwelt at the
mouth of the Scheldt, and believe that Cæsar had left important
shipyards in an enemy’s country, and out of reach of protection.
[390] The five legions which Cæsar led into Britain made, at about 5,000
men each, 25,000 men. There were, in addition to these, 2,000 cavalry.
If we suppose, as in the first expedition, twenty-five horses per ship,
it would require eighty to contain the cavalry. In the preceding year,
eighty transport ships had been sufficient for two legions, without
baggage--200 ought to have been enough for five legions; but as the
“Commentaries” give us to understand that those vessels were narrower,
and that the troops had their baggage, it may be believed that they
required double the number of ships, that is, 400, for the transport of
the five legions, which would make about sixty-two men in a ship. There
would remain 160 transport ships for the Gaulish and Roman chiefs, the
valets, and the provisions. The twenty-eight galleys were, no doubt, the
true ships of war, destined to protect the fleet and the landing.
[391] According to a passage in the “Commentaries” (Book V. 26), there
was in the Roman army a body of Spanish cavalry.
[392] Dio Casstas, XL. 1.
[393] De Bella Galtico, V. 8.
[394] This appears to us to be evident, since we shall see subsequently
Cæsar inclosed his fleet within the retrenchments contiguous to his
camp.
[395] As in the first expedition the disaster which happened to his
fleet must have proved to Cæsar the danger to which the vessels were
exposed on the coast, the above reflection indicates that, in his second
expedition, he chose a better anchorage, at a few kilomètres farther to
the north.
[396] Ten cohorts formed a legion; but Cæsar does not employ this last
expression, because, no doubt, he drew from each of his legions two
cohorts, which he left for the guard of the camp. In this manner he
preserved the tactical number of five legions, which was more
advantageous, and caused each legion to participate in the honour of
combating.
[397] If from the sea-shore, near Deal, where we suppose that the Romans
established their camp, we describe, with a radius of twelve miles, an
arc of a circle, we cut towards the west, the villages of Kingston and
Barham, and more to the north, the village of Littlebourne, a stream
called the Little Stour, which rises near Lyminge, flows from south to
north across a rather irregular country, and falls into the Great Stour.
This stream is incontestably the _flumen_ of the “Commentaries. ” There
is the less room for error, as we find no other stream in the part of
the county of Kent comprised between the coast of Deal and the Great
Stour, and as this latter runs too far from Deal to answer to the text.
Although the Little Stour is not, between Barham and Kingston, more than
from three to four mètres broad, we need not be astonished at the
denomination of _flumen_ given to it by Cæsar, for he employs the same
expression to designate simple rivulets, such as the Ose and the
Oserain. (_De Bello Gallico_, VII.
[278] We must not confound him with M. Junius Brutus, the assassin of
Cæsar. Decimus Junius Brutus was the adopted son of A. Postumius
Albinus. (See Drumann, IV. 9, and _Appendix D_. )
[279] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 40.
[280] We suppose, in this enumeration, that the legion of Galba,
cantoned the preceding winter among the Allobroges, had rejoined the
army.
[281] I borrow this interpretation of the Roman works from the very
instructive book of General de Gœler.
[282] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 13. --Strabo, IV. , p. 162.
[283] The fleet of the Veneti, superior to that of the Romans in number,
in the magnitude of their vessels, and in their rigging and sails, must
have issued from the river Auray by the Morbihan entrance to the gulf,
and met Brutus to fight him, instead of waiting for him at the head of
the bay, where retreat would be impossible. This follows from Cæsar’s
account: _ex portu profectæ, nostris adversæ constiterunt_. According to
the memoir by M. le Comte de Grandpré, a post-captain, inserted in the
_Recueil de la Société des Antiquaires de France_, tom. II. , 1820, the
wind must have been east or north-east, for it was towards the end of
the summer. It appears that these winds usually prevail at that period,
and that, when they have blown during the morning, there is a dead calm
towards the middle of the day: it is just what happened in this combat;
the calm came, probably, towards midday. It was necessary, indeed, that
the wind should be between the north and the east, to allow, on one hand
the Roman fleet to leave the Loire and sail towards the Point
Saint-Jacques, and, on the other, to permit the fleet of the Veneti to
quit the river Auray. These latter, in this position, could, in case of
defeat, take refuge in the Bay of Quiberon, or fly to the open sea,
where the Romans would not have dared to follow them.
With winds blowing from below, it matters not from what point, the
Romans could not have gone in search of their enemies, or the latter
come to meet them. Supposing that, in one tide, the Roman fleet had
arrived at the mouth of the Loire towards five o’clock in the morning;
it might have been towards ten o’clock, the moment when the battle
commenced, between Haedik and Sarzeau. Supposing similarly that, as
early as five o’clock in the morning, the movement of the Roman fleet
had been announced to the Veneti, they could, in five hours, have issued
from the river Auray, defiled by the entrance of the Morbihan, rallied
and advanced in order of battle to meet the Romans in the part of the
sea above described.
As to the place where Cæsar encamped, it is very probable, as we have
said, that it was on the heights of Saint-Gildas; for from thence he
could see the dispositions of the enemy, and perceive far off the
approach of his fleet. In case of check, the Roman galleys found, under
his protection, a place of refuge in the Vilaine. Thus, he had his rear
secured; rested upon the towns of the coast which he had taken; could
recall to him, if necessary, Titurius Sabinus; and lastly, could cross
the Vilaine, to place that river between him and his enemies. Placed, on
the contrary, on the other side of the Bay of Quiberon, he would have
been too much enclosed in an enemy’s country, and would have had none of
the advantages offered by the position of Saint-Gildas.
[284] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 41.
[285] We see, in fact, in Vegetius, that the word _falces_ was applied
to the head of a battering ram, armed with a point, and with a hook to
detach the stones from the walls. “Quæ (trabes) aut adunco præfigitur
ferro, et falx vocatur ab eo quod incurva est, ut de muro extrahat
lapides. ” (Vegetius, IV. 14. )
[286] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 17.
[287] This position is at the distance of seven kilomètres to the east
of Avranches. The vestiges still visible of Chastellier are probably
those of a camp made at a later period than this Gallic war, but we
think that Sabinus had established his camp on the same site.
[288] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 19.
[289] Cæsar, after having said, in the first book of his “Commentaries”,
that Aquitaine was one of the three parts of Gaul, states here that it
formed the third part by its extent and population, which is not
correct.
[290] Nicholas of Damascus (in _Athenæus, Deipn. _, VI. 249) writes in
this manner the name of King _Adiatomus_, and adds that the _soldurii_
were clothed in royal vestments.
[291] This combat is remarkable as being the only one in the whole war
in Gaul in which the Romans attack a fortified Gaulish camp.
[292] Of this number were the Tarbelli, The Bigerriones, The Ptiani, the
Vasates, the Tarusates, the Elusates, the Gaites, the Ausci, the
Garumni, the Sibusates, and the Cocosates.
[293] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 27.
[294] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, III. x. 6.
[295] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 44.
[296] Cæsar never entirely subjugated the north-west of Gaul. (See
Sallust, cited by Ammianus Marcellinus, XV. , 15. ) Still, under the reign
of Augustus, in 724 and 726, there were triumphs over the Morini.
[297] _De Bello Gallico_, III. 29.
[298] “In praetura, in consulatu præfectum fabrum detulit. ” (Cicero,
_Orat. pro Balbo_, 28. )
[299] Mamurra, a Roman knight, born at Formiæ. (Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _,
XXXVI. 7. )
[300] From Xanten to Nimeguen, for a length of fifty kilomètres, extends
a line of heights which form a barrier along the left bank of the Rhine.
All appearances would lead us to believe that the river flowed, in
Cæsar’s time, close at the foot of these heights; but now it has removed
from them, and at Emmerich, for instance, is at a distance of eight
kilomètres. This chain, the eastern slope of which is scarped, presents
only two passes; one by a large opening at Xanten itself, to the north
of the mountain called the Furstenberg; the other by a gorge of easy
access, opening at Qualburg, near Cleves. These two passes were so well
defined as the entries to Gaul in these regions, that, after the
conquest, the Romans closed them by fortifying the Furstenberg (_Castra
vetera_), and founding, on the two islands formed by the Rhine opposite
these entries, _Colonia Trajana_, now Xanten, and _Quadriburgium_, now
_Qualburg_. The existence of these isles facilitated at that time the
passage of the Rhine, and, in all probability, it was opposite these two
localities just named that the Usipetes and Tencteri crossed the river
to penetrate into Gaul.
[301] The account of this campaign is very obscure in the
“Commentaries. ” Florus and Dio Cassius add to the obscurities: the
first, by placing the scene of the defeat of the Usipetes and Tencteri
towards the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine; the second, by
writing that Cæsar came up with the Germans in the country of the
Treviri. Several authors have given to the account of these two
historians more credit than to that of Cæsar himself, and they give of
this campaign an explanation quite different from ours. General de
Gœler, among others, supposes that the whole emigration of the Germans
had advanced as far as the country of the Condrusi, where Cæsar came up
with them, and that he had driven them from west to east, into the angle
formed by the Moselle and the Rhine. From researches which were kindly
undertaken by M. de Cohausen, major in the Prussian army, and which have
given the same result as those of MM. Stoffel and De Locqueyssie, we
consider this explanation of the campaign as inadmissible. It would be
enough, to justify this assertion, to consider that the country situated
between the Meuse and the Rhine, to the south of Aix-la-Chapelle, is too
much broken and too barren to have allowed the German emigration,
composed of 430,000 individuals, men, women, and children, with wagons,
to move and subsist in it. Moreover, it contains no trace of ancient
roads; and if Cæsar had taken this direction, he must necessarily have
crossed the forest of the Ardennes, a circumstance of which he would not
have failed to inform us. Besides, is it not more probable that, on the
news of the approach of Cæsar, instead of directing their march towards
the Ubii, who were not favourable to them, the Germans, at first spread
over a vast territory, would have concentrated themselves towards the
most distant part of the fertile country on which they had seized--that
of the Menapii?
[302] The Ambivariti were established on the left bank of the Meuse, to
the west of Ruremonde, and to the south of the marshes of Peel.
[303] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 13.
[304] “Acie triplici instituta. ” Some authors have translated these
words by “the army was formed in three columns;” but Cæsar, operating in
a country which was totally uncovered and flat, and aiming at surprising
a great mass of enemies, must have marched in order of battle, which did
not prevent each cohort from being in column.
[305] Attacked unexpectedly in the afternoon, while they were sleeping.
(Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 48. )
[306] The study of the deserted beds of the Rhine leads us to believe
that the confluence of the Waal and the Meuse, which is at present near
Gorkum, was then much more to the east, towards Fort Saint-André. In
that case, Cæsar made no mistake in reckoning eighty miles from the
junction of the Waal and the Meuse to the mouth of the latter river.
[307] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 14, 15.
[308] The following reasons have led us to adopt Bonn as the point where
Cæsar crossed the Rhine:--
We learn from the “Commentaries” that in 699 he debouched in the country
of the Ubii, and that two years later it was a little above (_paulum
supra_) the first bridge that he established another, which joined the
territory of the Treviri with that of the Ubii. Now everything leads to
the belief that, in the first passage as in the second, the bridge was
thrown across between the frontiers of the same peoples; for we cannot
admit, with some authors, that the words _paulum supra_ apply to a
distance of several leagues. As to those who suppose that the passage
was effected at Andernach, because, changing with Florus the Meuse
(_Mosa_) into Moselle, they placed the scene of the defeat of the
Germans at the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine, we have given
the reasons for rejecting this opinion. We have endeavoured to prove, in
fact, that the battle against the Usipetes and the Tencteri had for its
theatre the confluence of the Meuse and the Rhine; and since, in
crossing this latter river, Cæsar passed from the country of the Treviri
into that of the Ubii, we must perceive that after his victory he must
necessarily have proceeded up the valley of the Rhine to go from the
territory of the Menapii to the Treviri, as far up as the territory of
the Ubii, established on the right bank.
This being admitted, it remains to fix, within the limits assigned to
these two last peoples, the most probable point of passage. Hitherto,
Cologne has been adopted; but, to answer to the data of the
“Commentaries,” Cologne appears to us to be much too far to the north.
In fact, in the campaign of 701, Cæsar, having started from the banks of
the Rhine, traversed the forest of the Ardennes from east to west,
passed near the Segni and the Condrusi, since they implored him to spare
their territory, and directed his march upon Tongres. If he had started
from Cologne, he would not have crossed the countries in question.
Moreover, in this same year, 2,000 Sicambrian cavalry crossed the Rhine
thirty miles below the bridge of the Roman army. Now, if this bridge had
been constructed at Cologne, the point of passage of the Sicambri,
thirty miles below, would have been at a very great distance from
Tongres, where, nevertheless, they seem to have arrived very quickly.
On the contrary, everything is explained if we adopt Bonn as the point
of passage. To go from Bonn to Tongres, Cæsar proceeded, as the text has
it, across the forest of the Ardennes; he passed through the country of
the Segni and Condrusi, or very near them; and the Sicambri, crossing
the Rhine thirty miles below Bonn, took the shortest line from the Rhine
to Tongres. Moreover, we cannot place Cæsar’s point of passage either
lower or higher than Bonn. Lower, that is, towards the north, the
different incidents related in the “Commentaries” are without possible
application to the theatre of the events; higher, towards the south, the
Rhine flows upon a rocky bed, where the piles could not have been driven
in, and presents, between the mountains which border it, no favourable
point of passage. We may add that Cæsar would have been much too far
removed from the country of the Sicambri, the chastisement of whom was
the avowed motive of his expedition.
Another fact deserves to be taken into consideration: that, less than
fifty years after Cæsar’s campaigns, Drusus, in order to proceed against
the Sicambri--that is, against the same people whom Cæsar intended to
combat--crossed the Rhine at Bonn. (Florus, IV. 12. )
[309] The following passage has given room for different
interpretations:--
“Hæc utraque insuper bipedalibus trabibus immissis, quantum eorum
tignorum junctura distabat, binis utrimque fibulis ab extrema parte
distinebantur; quibus disclusis atque in contrariam partem revinctis,
tanta erat operis firmitudo atque ea rerum natura, ut, quo major vis
aquæ se incitavisset, hoc arctius illigata tenerentur. ” (_De Bello
Gallico_, IV. 17. )
It has not been hitherto observed that the words _hæc utraque_ relate to
the two couples of one row of piles, and not to the two piles of the
same couple. Moreover, the words _quibus disclusis_, &c. , relate to
these same two couples, and not, as has been supposed, to _fibulis_.
[310] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 20.
[311] _De Bello Gallico_, II. 4.
[312] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 13.
[313] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, IV. 30, § 16.
[314] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, IV. 30, § 16. --Tacitus, _Agricola_, 10.
[315] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.
[316] Strabo, IV. , p. 199.
[317] _Agricola_, 12.
[318] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.
[319] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 13 and 14.
[320] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 20.
[321] _Annales_, XIV. 33.
[322] Although the greater number of manuscripts read _Cenimagni_, some
authors have made two names of it, the _Iceni_ and the _Cangi_.
[323] The _Anderida Silva_, 120 miles in length by 30 in breadth,
extended over the counties of Sussex and Kent, in what is now called the
_Weald_. (See Camden, _Britannia_, edit. Gibson, I. , col. 151, 195, 258,
edit. of 1753. )
[324] Diodorus Siculus, V. 21. --Tacitus, _Agricola_, 12.
[325] IV. , p. 200.
[326] _Agricola_, 11.
[327] Diodorus Siculus, V. 21.
[328] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 21.
[329] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.
[330] Strabo, IV. , p. 200.
[331] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.
[332] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, XXII. 1.
[333] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 14.
[334] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22.
[335] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22. --Strabo, IV. , p. 200.
[336] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.
[337] _De Bello Gallico_, VI. 13.
[338] _Agricola_, 11.
[339] Strabo, IV. , p. 199.
[340] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 12.
[341] Diodorus Siculus, V. 22.
[342] Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, IV. 30, § 16.
[343] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 36.
[344] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 16.
[345] Tacitus, _Agricola_, 12.
[346] Frontinus, _Stratagm. _, II. 3, 18. --Diodorus Siculus, V.
21. --Strabo, IV. , p. 200.
[347] The account on page 213 confirms this interpretation, which is
conformable to that of General Gœler.
[348] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 32 and 33.
[349] Strabo, IV. , p. 200.
[350] Strabo, IV. , p. 201.
[351] From what will be seen further on, each transport ship, on its
return, contained 150 men. Eighty ships could thus transport 12,000 men,
but since, reduced to sixty-eight, they were enough to carry back the
whole army to the continent, they can only have carried 10,200 men,
which was probably the effective force of the two legions. The eighteen
ships appropriated to the cavalry might transport 450 horses, at the
rate of twenty-five horses each ship.
[352] The port of Dover extended formerly from the site of the present
town, between the cliffs which border the valley of the Dour or of
Charlton. (_See Plate 17. _) Indeed, from the facts furnished by ancient
authors, and a geological examination of the ground, it appears certain
that once the sea penetrated into the land, and formed a creek which
occupied nearly the whole of the valley of Charlton. The words of Cæsar
are just justified: “Cujus loci hæc erat natura, atque ita montibus
angustis mare continebatur, uti ex locis superioribus in littus telum
adjici posset. ” (IV. 23. )
The proofs of the above assertion result from several facts related in
different notices on the town of Dover. It is there said that in 1784
Sir Thomas Hyde Page caused a shaft to be sunk at a hundred yards from
the shore, to ascertain the depth of the basin at a remote period; it
proved that the ancient bed of the sea had been formerly thirty English
feet below the present level of the high tide. In 1826, in sinking a
well at a place called _Dolphin Lane_, they found, at a depth of
twenty-one feet, a bed of mud resembling that of the present port, mixed
with the bones of animals and fragments of leaves and roots. Similar
detritus have been discovered in several parts of the valley. An ancient
chronicler, named Darell, relates that “Wilbred, King of Kent, built in
700 the church of St. Martin, the ruins of which are still visible near
the market-place, on the spot where formerly ships cast anchor. ”
The town built under the Emperors Adrian and Septimus Severus occupied a
part of the port, which had already been covered with sand; yet the sea
still entered a considerable distance inland. (_See Plate 17. _)
It would appear to have been about the year 950 that the old port was
entirely blocked up with the maritime and fluvial alluvium which have
been increasing till our day, and which at different periods have
rendered it necessary to construct the dykes and quays which have given
the port its present form.
[353] “Constat enim aditus insulæ esse munitos mirificis molibus. ”
(Cicero, _Epist. ad Atticum_, IV. 16. )
[354] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 51.
[355] The Emperor Julian (p. 70, edit. Lasius) makes Cæsar say that he
had been the first to leap down from the ship.
[356] It is in the text, _in scopulum vicinum insulæ_, which must be
translated by “a rock near the isle of Britain,” and not, as certain
authors have interpreted it, “a rock isolated from the continent. ”
(Valerius Maximus, III. ii. 23. )--In fact, these rocks, called _Malms_,
are distinctly seen at low water opposite the arsenal and marine
barracks at Deal.
[357] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 51.
[358] Cæsar himself had only carried three servants with him, as Cotta
relates. (Athenæus, _Deipnosophist. _, VI. 105. )
[359] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 53.
[360] At the battle of Arcola, in 1796, twenty-five horsemen had a great
influence on the issue of the day. (_Mémoires de Montholon, dictées de
Sainte-Hélène,_ II. 9. )
[361] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 36 and 37.
[362] _De Bello Gallico_, IV. 38.
[363] Dio Cassius, XL. 1. --See Strabo, IV. , p. 162, edit. Didot.
[364] _De Bello Gallico_, V. I.
[365] Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 56. XL. 1.
[366] This opinion has been already supported by learned archæologists.
I will cite especially M. Mariette; Mr. Thomas Lewin, who has written a
very interesting account of Cæsar’s invasions of England; and lastly, M.
l’Abbé Haigneré, archivist of Boulogne, who has collected the best
documents on this question.
[367] Strabo, IV. 6, p. 173.
[368] According to the Itinerary of Antoninus, the road started from
Bagacum (_Bavay_), and passed by Pons-Scaldis (_Escaut-Pont_), Turnacum
(_Tournay_), Viroviacum (_Werwick_), Castellum (_Montcassel, Cassel_),
Tarvenna (_Thérouanne_), and thence to Gesoriacum (_Boulogne_).
According to Mariette, medals found on the road demonstrate that it had
been made in the time of Agrippa; moreover, according to the same
Itinerary of Antoninus, a Roman road started from Bavay, and, by
Tongres, ended at the Rhine at Bonn. (See _Jahrbücher des Vereins von
Alterthums Freunden_, Heft 37, Bonn, 1864. Now, admitting that there had
been already under Augustus a road which united Boulogne with Bonn, we
understand the expression of Florus, who explains that Drusus amended
this road by constructing bridges on the numerous water-courses which it
crossed, _Bonnam et Gesoriacum pontibus junxit_. (Florus, IV. 12. )
[369] Suetonius, _Caligula_, 46. --The remains of the pharos of Caligula
were still visible a century ago.
[370] Suetonius, _Claudius_, 17.
[371] Ammianus Marcellinus, XX. 1.
[372] Ammianus Marcellinus, XX. 7, 8.
[373] Eumenius, _Panegyric of Constantinus Cæsar_, 14.
[374] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, cited by Mr. Lewin.
[375] “Qui tertia vigilia Morino solvisset a portu. ” (Florus, III. 10. )
[376] Strabo, IV. 5, p. 166.
[377] “Ultimos Gallicarum gentium Morinos, nec portu quam Gesoriacum
vocant quicquam notius habet. ” (Pomponius Mela, III. 2. )--“Μορινὡν
Γησοριακον ἑπἱνειον. ” (Ptolemy, II. ix. 3. )
[378] “Hæc [Britannia] abest a Gesoriaco Morinorum gentis litore proximo
trajectu quinquaginta M. ” (Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, IV. 30. )
[379] The camp of Labienus, during the second expedition, was, no doubt,
established on the site now occupied by the high town. From thence it
commanded the surrounding country, the sea, and the lower course of the
Liane.
[380] _Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire_, tom. IV. , I. 17.
[381] What is now called _Romney Marsh_ is the northern part of a vast
plain, bounded on the east and south by the sea, and on the west and
north by the line of heights at the foot of which the military canal has
been cut. It is difficult to determine what was the aspect of Romney
Marsh in the time of Cæsar. Nevertheless, the small elevation of the
plain above the level of the sea, as well as the nature of the soil,
lead us to conclude that the sea covered it formerly up to the foot of
the heights of Lymne, except at least in the part called
_Dymchurch-Wall_. This is a long tongue of land, on which are now raised
three forts and nine batteries, and which, considering its height above
the rest of the plain, has certainly never been covered by the sea.
These facts appear to be confirmed by an ancient chart in the Cottonian
collection in the British Museum.
Mr. Lewin appears to have represented as accurately as possible the
appearance of Romney Marsh in the time of Cæsar, in the plate which
accompanies his work. The part not covered by the sea extended, no
doubt, as he represents it, from the bay of Romney to near Hythe, where
it terminated in a bank of pebbles of considerable extent. But it
appears to us that it would have been difficult for the Roman army to
land on a bank of pebbles at the very foot of the rather steep heights
of Lymne. Mr. Lewin places the Roman army, in the first expedition, at
the foot of the heights, on the bank of pebbles itself, surrounded on
almost all sides by the sea. In the second expedition, he supposes it to
have been on the heights, at the village of Lymne; and, to explain how
Cæsar joined his fleet to the camp by retrenchments common to both, he
admits that this fleet was drawn on land as far as the slope of the
heights, and shut up in a square space of 300 mètres each side, because
we find there the ruins of an ancient castle called _Stutfall Castle_.
All this is hardly admissible.
[382] Word for word, this expression signifies that the ships set sail
four days after the arrival of the Romans in England. The Latin language
often employed the ordinal number instead of the cardinal number. Thus,
the historian Eutropius says, “Carthage was destroyed 700 years after it
was founded, _Carthago septingentesimo anno quam condita erat deleta
est_. ” Are we, in the phrase, _post diem quartum_, to reckon the day of
the arrival? --Virgil says, speaking of the seventeenth day, _septima
post decimam_. --Cicero uses the expression _post sexennium_ in the sense
of _six years_. It is evident that Virgil counts seven days after the
tenth. If the tenth was comprised in this number, the expression
_septima post decimam_ would signify simply the _sixteenth day_. On his
part, Cicero understands clearly the six years as a lapse of time which
was to pass, starting from the moment in which he speaks. Thus, the
_post diem quartum_ of Cæsar must be understood in the sense of four
days accomplished, without reckoning the day of landing.
[383] Titus Livius, XLIV. 37.
[384] We must now go back to the fourteenth day before the full moon,
that is, to the 17th of August, 699, to find a day on which high tide
took place at Dover towards midday.
[385] Mr. Lewin has stated that the country between Deal and Sandwich
produces no wheat. This assertion is tolerably true for the tongue of
marshy land which separates those two localities; but what does it
signify, since wheat grows in great quantities in all the part of the
county of Kent situated to the west of the coast which extends from the
South Foreland to Deal and Sandwich?
[386] It is almost impossible to fix with certainty the day when Cæsar
quitted Britain; we know only that it was a short time before the
equinox (_propinqua die æquinoxii_), which, according to the
calculations of M. Le Verrier, fell on the 26th of September, and that
the fleet started a little after midnight. If we admit a passage of nine
hours, with a favorable wind (_ipse idoneam tempestatem nactus_), as on
the return of the second expedition, Cæsar would have arrived at
Boulogne towards nine o’clock in the morning. As the fleet could not
enter the port until the tide was in, it is sufficient, to know
approximatively the date of Cæsar’s return, to seek what day in the
month of September, 699, there was high tide at that hour at Bolougne.
Now, in this port, the tide is always at its height towards nine o’clock
in the morning two or three days before full moon and before new moon;
therefore, since the full moon of the month of September, 699, took
place on the 14th, it must have been about the 11th or 12th of September
that Cæsar returned to Gaul. As to the two ships which were driven
farther down, Mr. Lewin (_Invasion of Britain by J. Cæsar_) explains
this accident in a very judicious manner. He states that we read in the
tide-tables of the English Admiralty the following recommendation: “In
approaching Boulogne when the tide is flowing in, great attention must
be paid, because the current, which, on the English side, drags a ship
towards the east, on the Boulogne side drags them, on the contrary,
towards the Somme. ” Nothing, then, is more natural than that the two
Roman transport ships should be driven ashore to the south of Boulogne.
[387] “It was there (the mouth of the Seine) that Cæsar established his
naval arsenal, when he passed over to that island (Britain. )” (Strabo,
II. 160. )
[388] _De Bello Gallico_, V. 3, 4.
[389] The Meldæ dwelt on the Marne, in the country around Meaux; and as
we have seen, according to Strabo, that Cæsar had established his naval
arsenal at the mouth of the Seine, there is nothing extraordinary in the
circumstance that some of the ships were built near Meaux. But it is not
reasonable to suppose, with some writers, that the Meldæ dwelt at the
mouth of the Scheldt, and believe that Cæsar had left important
shipyards in an enemy’s country, and out of reach of protection.
[390] The five legions which Cæsar led into Britain made, at about 5,000
men each, 25,000 men. There were, in addition to these, 2,000 cavalry.
If we suppose, as in the first expedition, twenty-five horses per ship,
it would require eighty to contain the cavalry. In the preceding year,
eighty transport ships had been sufficient for two legions, without
baggage--200 ought to have been enough for five legions; but as the
“Commentaries” give us to understand that those vessels were narrower,
and that the troops had their baggage, it may be believed that they
required double the number of ships, that is, 400, for the transport of
the five legions, which would make about sixty-two men in a ship. There
would remain 160 transport ships for the Gaulish and Roman chiefs, the
valets, and the provisions. The twenty-eight galleys were, no doubt, the
true ships of war, destined to protect the fleet and the landing.
[391] According to a passage in the “Commentaries” (Book V. 26), there
was in the Roman army a body of Spanish cavalry.
[392] Dio Casstas, XL. 1.
[393] De Bella Galtico, V. 8.
[394] This appears to us to be evident, since we shall see subsequently
Cæsar inclosed his fleet within the retrenchments contiguous to his
camp.
[395] As in the first expedition the disaster which happened to his
fleet must have proved to Cæsar the danger to which the vessels were
exposed on the coast, the above reflection indicates that, in his second
expedition, he chose a better anchorage, at a few kilomètres farther to
the north.
[396] Ten cohorts formed a legion; but Cæsar does not employ this last
expression, because, no doubt, he drew from each of his legions two
cohorts, which he left for the guard of the camp. In this manner he
preserved the tactical number of five legions, which was more
advantageous, and caused each legion to participate in the honour of
combating.
[397] If from the sea-shore, near Deal, where we suppose that the Romans
established their camp, we describe, with a radius of twelve miles, an
arc of a circle, we cut towards the west, the villages of Kingston and
Barham, and more to the north, the village of Littlebourne, a stream
called the Little Stour, which rises near Lyminge, flows from south to
north across a rather irregular country, and falls into the Great Stour.
This stream is incontestably the _flumen_ of the “Commentaries. ” There
is the less room for error, as we find no other stream in the part of
the county of Kent comprised between the coast of Deal and the Great
Stour, and as this latter runs too far from Deal to answer to the text.
Although the Little Stour is not, between Barham and Kingston, more than
from three to four mètres broad, we need not be astonished at the
denomination of _flumen_ given to it by Cæsar, for he employs the same
expression to designate simple rivulets, such as the Ose and the
Oserain. (_De Bello Gallico_, VII.
